Mark Didas

is the Director of Marketing at IP.com. Mark's primary focus is on the accumulation of unique and rare prior art content. His background covers marketing, corporate branding, business development, IT, technical development, and general management. He has extensive knowledge in creating dynamic user interface and custom web experiences. Mark graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in communications.


Articles By This Author

IP.com at Bio-IT World Conference in Boston

We're at the Bio-IT World Conference & Expo at the World Trade Center in Boston showing off the latest version of InnovationQ. This release, version 3.1, adds several major new features to the InnovationQ platform.

InnovationQ

InnovationQ helps companies safeguard their intellectual property, derive more value from ideas, and speed the monetization of innovation. With streamlined processes and a secure system for managing innovation, InnovationQ effectively protects and enhances intellectual property from its earliest stages.

Version 3.1 incorporates collaborative features within the InnovationQ platform. With InnovationQ, users can now efficiently communicate as a team in an environment that secures their ideas as intellectual property. Combined with the workflow engine and document management capabilities, InnovationQ delivers full-featured innovation and intellectual property management solutions.

Next month, we'll be at the PharmaBiotech IP Summit in Philadelphia.

See what's happening here at IP.com in the weeks and months ahead, and where you'll be able to meet up with us between now and the Bio International Convention in San Diego in June.

Innovation & The University-Industry Interface

"The day academia & industrialists can smoothly inter-connect, inter-operate & forge alliances of equals, will be the beginning of an era of smooth, continuous innovation." - Desmond Aubery

That's a perceptive observation pulled from the comments to a great article "Innovation and the University-Industry Interface" republished on Xconomy, which begins with this thought:

The buzzword of the 1980s and ’90s was “entrepreneurship.” This decade, the obsession is with “innovation” as the presumed path to riches for people and nations. Since the key generators of innovation are research universities and the key implementers of innovation are companies, there is an ever-increasing focus on making the university and industry interface more effective. But will the twain meet? It could be very difficult.


I thought the article was well worth reading again and, as I'm preparing to head off  to "Changing Horizons", the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), the following quote from the article caught my attention:

Academic institutions have huge reputations and visibility, but a very small or dedicated core staff. For instance, MIT is huge in reach, breadth, impact, and reputation. Yet its core faculty has hovered around 900 since 1950. Contrast this with IBM at some 350,000 employees.


IP.com works with major companies, helping businesses manage innovation, and recently we've been talking with technology managers at universities about leveraging our innovation management applications and technologies to create a customized interface between academia and big business. As noted in the New York Times:

The obsession with marrying research and markets, while generally a strength of American capitalism, leaves some needs unmet. To fill them, “companies need boots on the ground at universities,” says Henry Chesbrough, a business professor who studies innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.


We're really looking forward to meeting with the intellectual property professionals at  AUTM, a nonprofit professional association with membership of more than 3,600 intellectual property managers and business executives from 45 countries.  This looks like an especially interesting part of the conference program:

Innovation Showcases: academic and government technology transfer offices, along with university-based startup companies, present the latest and greatest technologies in life sciences and physical sciences to affiliate members in these rapid-fire, business-oriented sessions. The Showcase will be followed by AUTM's new "Getting Down to Business" Social Hour, a reception for academics, company representatives, investors and other service providers an opportunity to get to know each other in a relaxed social setting.


Who knows what new technology developed at universities will be showcased? I wonder if there will be anyone from the University of Michigan to talk about the new Hercules laser announced this week. Wow!

If you're planning on attending the annual meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers in San Diego from February 28th to March 1st and would like to get together and chat about what we can do to bridge the technology transfer gap between universities and corporations, please give me a call or email and we'll set something up. Perhaps we can connect you with the people at our corporate clients that share the vision for an innovative university-industry interface.

Verified Publication and Prior Art

PubMed Central (PMC) is a free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), developed and managed by NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in the National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Recently, on the Patent Information Users Group discussion list, we picked up an email conversation among registered users of the PIUG that raised questions and concerns that re-publication on PubMed Central, while a valuable additional source for online access to information that might be evidence of prior art, does not help establish with any authority the "publication date" or the "public availability date" of the information published in participating journals. As one industry specialist observed:

Websites are notorious for not posting availability dates or publication dates, or for posting dates that later get revised with reloads. Just as masters theses are often problematic prior art documents, not just from a retrieval perspective, but from proof of publication or public availability dates. Universities vary widely in their treatment of their own Masters theses. Some are accessioned like standard publications, get date stamped, cataloged normally,etc., but others merely sit on special collection shelves with no way to prove public availability until someone checks them out!

It is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to verify publication dates of online content. That is why many companies and individuals publish their documents not only in a specific trade journal, but also in secure online environments such as the IP.com Prior Art Database to provide a non-refereed destination for technical disclosures and other documents which need verifiable dates of publication.

If participants in this discussion on the PIUG discussion list and other readers here would like to share thoughts and experiences verifying dates of publication of online documents, we'd be very interested in your comments.

Publishing to IP.com's Prior Art Database

Publishing a technical disclosure to the IP.com Prior Art Database is straightforward and easy. The following paragraphs contain certain elements that you are likely to find useful as you begin to use the system, but for complete instructions and online demonstrations for both publishing and searching, please visit our Prior Art Database at http://www.ip.com/pad Use of the publishing site requires registration with IP.com and the purchase of publication vouchers. Whereas vouchers may be purchased online using a credit card, most companies choose either to buy vouchers in bulk or to be billed monthly. Individual registration is easily accomplished online.

Companies which prefer to set up corporate accounts that share a pool of vouchers can contact an IP.com representative at 1-585-427-8180. Limited free searching of the Prior Art Database is available. Full access and robust searching such as patent examiners enjoy, including unlimited downloading of documents, is available for an annual fee. Our search facility allows for full text, concept or fielded Boolean searches.

Content of a technical disclosure

Submission of your technical disclosure for publication via the IP.com website is accomplished by a simple series of steps, each of which has instructions and links to get further information if necessary. The most significant element that is required by the disclosure submission process is the primary document - the document containing the technical disclosure itself. Your primary document should contain the full text and, optionally, any graphics associated with your disclosure. Many standard formats are accepted, including Microsoft Word® (DOC), Microsoft PowerPoint® (PPT), PDF, HTML, Rich Text Format (RTF), and clear text (ASCII) files.

If you so choose, you can put supporting materials into the attachment - a secondary file that may be uploaded during the submission process. Files of arbitrary format are accepted as the attachment, allowing you to publish output from CAD programs, graphics programs, or virtually any other program that you use. It is possible to publish a disclosure with multiple attachments by bundling the attachments using various technologies. If you use a ZIP utility for bundling, the disclosure publishing process will optionally unpack the ZIP file into individual attachments.

Solving Business Problems and Managing Risk with Technical Disclosures

Continue Reading...

Writing Technical Disclosures

There are a number of key issues with which disclosure writers should be familiar. Technical disclosures as a publication vehicle have several unique characteristics that you can leverage. In addition, the various purposes for and methods of use of technical disclosures can alter the content in the disclosure or the way disclosures are written.

Flexible, controllable technical disclosures

Anonymity - Published technical disclosures have several unique advantages relative to other publications. For example, unlike conventional publications, disclosures can be published anonymously, allowing an author to safely disclose information that might otherwise be useful to a competitor's intelligence function or that could be offensive to a business partner. Clearly, certain instances of the customer/supplier control tactics might be quite problematic if your publication could be linked back to you.

Speed - Another advantage of the published technical disclosure is that it can be published extremely rapidly (relative to peer review publications). In fact, technical disclosures can be published in minutes, as opposed to weeks or months. Every day counts in matters pertaining to publication of inventions and patentable technology, since the outcome of patent prosecution and interference actions often depends on differences of days or weeks.

Format Flexibility - Even the formats of published technical disclosures can vary significantly, depending on the particular goals of the author and the complexity of the disclosed technology. The length of disclosures ranges widely, and many can be found that are less than a page long although some are many pages. A typical disclosure is one or two pages in length and often contains nothing other than a title, an abstract, and a description of the invention, although it may also contain graphs, chemical structures, process charts, citations, tables of data, etc.

Content Control - Finally, since they are not subjected to peer or editorial review, the author has full control in determining the content. This should be used to your advantage in your writing. For example, you can choose which pieces of an invention to disclose and which to keep secret. Or you can provide market information regarding the potential value of the invention if your purpose is to advertise your pending patent. You can choose your context and citations based on how you want readers to think about your technology, or you can suggest wide ranges of applications. It all depends on your goals in writing the disclosure, as the next section describes.

Continue Reading...

Getting Started With Technical Disclosures

It should be obvious by now that technical disclosures are something you need to start utilizing. But where do you begin? With so many possible approaches, coupled with your limited resources, it may seem to be a daunting task. You need to consider which tactic(s) will provide you with the greatest value for the least effort.

Check off the easy tactics

If you've never utilized technical disclosures before, it's clear that you'll need to make some changes in order to integrate these new methodologies into your existing processes. This doesn't, however, mean that it will take a long time to start utilizing the power of technical disclosures. Luckily, there are some tactics that are easy to implement, require little or no additional processes, and yet provide substantial benefits for very little cost. These are ideal situations in which to apply the power of technical disclosures immediately.

Information that is already in the public domain (albeit in an obscure publication) is an excellent place to let technical disclosures start to work. Re-publishing existing materials with the express intent of making them more accessible to examiners can help ensure that bad patents do not issue on disclosed information. The act of publishing this information requires no strategic consideration on your part, as there is no question of the suitability of any particular innovation for public release. Typical items that should be published, or more accurately, re-published in this manner, are:

  • conference proceedings
  • product information
  • product manuals
  • marketing literature
  • advertisements
  • journal articles
  • obscure prior art relevant to your IP domain
  • rejected patent applications (with reasons for rejection)

All these should be disclosed as they become available. In addition, recent instances of these documents are likely to be easily located and published. For many companies, even older documents can be located and disclosed for the protection they afford.

Continue Reading...

Solving Business Problems and Managing Risk with Technical Disclosures

Technical disclosures originating at the invention review stage

For our purposes, the invention review process represents an organization's work process for assessing what should be done with new inventions and defining the scope of any patent application. It is typical for an IP management team (with input from appropriate R&D, business, and legal management) to handle this work process. It is in this domain that a clear understanding of the power of technical disclosure can save hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars in fees associated with patenting technology that you might eventually discover is of marginal or no value. Retain your right to use your non-patented innovation At the time of invention review, you have some tough choices to make. The prohibitive cost of obtaining patents will force you into separating innovation between those which are deemed to be critical to your business and those which are not. Resources are limited - you have to make sure you fight the right fight!

Nevertheless, you have to be careful. Although the innovation you don't patent is deemed non-critical to the operation of your business, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't cause inconvenience and expense if you were prevented from using these inventions due to a competitor's patent. If a competitor obtains a patent on an innovation you failed to patent, you have three options. You can try to invalidate the patent, which will lead to a costly trial (in terms of both time and money). You can continue to use the innovation (and pay licensing fees). Or, you can devote time and money into developing ways to work around the patent.

The far simpler and more cost effective way is to prevent a competitor from obtaining a patent in the first place. At the time of your invention review, release your non-critical innovations to the public via a technical disclosure. This will establish your innovation as public domain, and prevent others from obtaining patents that can block your use.

When trying to decided whether to patent or publish, there is one highly effective question that can help you decide which is the better course: "If someone were to infringe this patent, would it be worth my while to defend my patent rights in court?" Certainly, it is unwise to spend more in litigation than you could hope to gain in judgments, royalties, and licensing fees from an infringer. And if your patent is not worth the millions you would spend defending it, is it worth the tens of thousands you would spend to acquire and maintain it in the first place? These questions are worth asking, since for a small fraction of these costs you can protect your freedom to practice your invention by publishing a technical disclosure.

Continue Reading...

Best Practices Using Technical Disclosures

For clarity in instruction, we can roughly classify technical disclosure tactics in terms of where they occur in the IP life cycle. First, there are technical disclosures covering technology that a company has previously disclosed publicly but also informally, which means patent examiners may not have easy access to the information. Next are the technical disclosures covering previously undisclosed technology. The need to create a disclosure on these items becomes manifest at key points in a company's innovation management process. These disclosures can be further subdivided into categories relating to the internal business process from which they would originate. These processes include the invention review process, the patent application and prosecution process, and finally, the technology and business review.

As you no doubt guess or will soon see, the placement of each best practice into a single category or subcategory is an oversimplification, since many of them can originate from various stages in your invention process. It does, however, provide us with a starting point to discuss ways in which to integrate technical disclosures into your current IP strategy.

Continue Reading...

How To Protect Your Innovation

Patent your innovations

No one can argue against the power of a patent. Patents are integral to any technology company's IP strategy. But some would suggest that you patent all your innovations. In fact, as suggested by the statistics discussed earlier, some companies are currently pursuing this approach.

However, it is simply cost prohibitive to patent every idea. Even neglecting downstream costs such as maintenance fees, your initial cost (for legal and application fees) in a single patenting jurisdiction is $10,000-$15,000 for a relatively simple patent, and up to $25,000 for a patent of moderate complexity. If you want patent coverage in several foreign jurisdictions, you should expect to spend at least $35,000-$60,000, just for the first few years of coverage! At these prices it's important that you have a revenue or financial plan for each patent. There are some patents that are worth every penny of this figure, considering that they are fundamental to business lines worth millions in annual revenue. So go ahead and pay the $250,000 for worldwide, lifetime patent protection on these innovations.

The more challenging question becomes: are all your patents worth that much? Certainly the fundamental innovations that define your market and guarantee your margins are of huge value, but what about the incremental inventions, the new uses of your old technology, the many inventions that only build on your preexisting intellectual property? Perhaps you can patent everything, but is it really cost-effective and efficient? Is it really necessary?

Ignore your innovation?

Some firms do nothing with their innovation, but the risk associated with this policy is both obvious and enormous. Even so, most firms take this risky approach for a significant fraction of their inventions, and only 10-20% of their patentable ideas actually become part of a patent application! What happens to the other inventions? Deemed less important, or not worth the cost of a patent (correctly), or merely not very interesting to the scientist or engineer involved, the innovation gets shelved... and remains at risk. Such companies' survival depends on luck, or on their competitors sleeping at the wheel. The downside costs if you pursue such a policy can be huge! In using your own, unpatented technology, perhaps you infringe someone else's patent and are forced to pay damages and royalties - directly to your competitor. Or perhaps you discover the competitive patent yourself, and choose instead the pain of redesign, paying dearly in time to market, in R&D expenditures, and even in marketing costs for affected products.

Or maybe you were first to invent, yet your competitor got a patent anyway; then you would have to decide how much it is worth to invalidate the bogus patent... is it worth the $500,000 to $1,500,000 to get through the discovery phase, hoping to settle out of court? Is it worth the $1,500,000-$2,500,000 to complete the jury trial? And in the meantime, your business is stalled by temporary injunctions!

In today's IP climate, most companies recognize that doing nothing with their innovation is a recipe for disaster. Even postponing decisions on what to do with an invention creates significant, and often unnecessary, exposure. However, many companies still allow many inventions to be shelved - unpatented, unprotected, at risk.

Hide behind a trade secret

Another option is to try to keep your innovation as a trade secret. Trade secret law offers limited protection in circumstances where the innovation is not obvious to the public and where you can demonstrate that you put adequate effort into keeping it a secret. The value and enforceability of trade secrets is called into question by the significant increase in employee mobility and the ease of information transfer, coupled with a high legal standard for security measures and protective procedures, and the bent of the courts to protect employee rights. There is no trade-secret protection for innovation that can be reverse-engineered; a competitor can independently discover your invention and use it, or even patent it. In reality, with today's aggressive competitive intelligence tactics, your secrets of today may very well be your competitors' patent-pending products of tomorrow.

Trade secret protection is of value in a few situations, but it is simply inappropriate for the majority of your innovative efforts.

Publish a technical disclosure

So if doing nothing with your innovation is too risky, and trade secrets are unsuitable for widespread application, and patenting everything is cost prohibitive, what options remain? Fortunately, there is another way. Technical disclosures provide an inexpensive means to protect your freedom to practice your innovation, effectively reducing the significant cost of patenting and removing the huge risks of someone else getting a patent on your ideas. What is technical disclosure? Quite simply, it is the intentional and purposeful publication of innovation into the public domain. Thus, technical disclosures create prior art which can prevent a related patent from issuing, based on the typical requirements which demand that patentable innovation be new and non-obvious. With a technical disclosure (also called a defensive publication), your competitor cannot patent the invention, and you retain your freedom to practice your innovation.

Continue Reading...

Disclosures in the Competitive Landscape

The patent race is on!!

Innovation has become a primary driving force in industry worldwide. Companies have been racing to develop their IP portfolios by scrambling to gather the most extensive patent coverage they can afford. New companies need to make their mark early, or they risk getting left behind, whereas established companies need to maintain and build upon their current IP portfolios if they want to remain competitive. This is reflected in the overwhelming 187,017 patents granted in the US patent office in 2003, an astounding 70% increase over 1993 (see chart below), and the USPTO expects these records to be broken each year. The trend in patent applications predicts that the escalation in patenting will continue. Applications in the year 2003 hit 366,043, a 94% increase over 1993.

Everyone agrees that patents are one of the cornerstones of free enterprise, but experts are beginning to raise concerns that the patent explosion is opening up opportunity for some very costly and serious problems down the road. Fortunately, new solutions based on the strategic use of technical disclosures are arising to combat those problems.

Overburdened examiners

The patent land grab is putting an extraordinary burden on the world patent offices, which try valiantly to absorb this explosive growth, yet are overwhelmed by sheer numbers. As a result, overly broad, and arguably bad patents are being issued every day, due in large part to the fact that examiners simply don't have the time to locate and review all the potential prior art before issuing a patent. Therefore, many of these patents would not hold up against an invalidity challenge in the courts. Indeed, thousands of patents are being contested, putting a heavy burden on the federal courts. In a perfect world, patents would never be issued on inventions previously placed in the public domain. Bad patents do issue, however, because examiners are simply unable to spend the time required to locate all relevant prior art in a given case. In fact, it is unlikely that innovation published to any number of disparate publications will ever be seen by examiners, much less be used to prevent the issuance of bad patents.

IP.com's introduction of a centralized database of published prior art, and IP.com's cooperation with the world patent offices to provide them with direct data feeds and/or web access, tremendously increases the chances that a particular piece of prior art will be found by examiners when needed.

Well-placed technical disclosures, therefore, are valuable on two points: first, to support examiners in preventing overly broad patents from issuing; and second, in cases where overly broad patents do issue, to be available and admissible years later at trial to form the basis for an invalidity defense in a patent case. When balanced against cost, it is far more important to prevent overly broad patents from issuing in the first place than to deal with postgrant consequences, such as litigation, millions of dollars in legal fees, lost time-to-market from adverse injunction rulings, downstream (post launch) product/service redesign, and loss of freedom to practice innovation.

Having an invalid patent get issued (to you) is worse than the application being rejected outright because it gives the holder of the patent a false sense of security. Invalid patents can cause the holder to make strategic and costly decisions that could later become fatal when the patent is overturned, and at great legal expense.

Continue Reading...