I have made several changes to the look of “The Patent Analyst” blog — the layout is cleaner, more modern, and updated for mobile device presentation. Because I had not modified the layout for several years, it was time for a fresh change. I hope you like it! 🙂
Prior to my attendance and panel participation at the SUITS conference in August 2013, TMC published an interview they did with me titled “Three Areas of Intellectual Property You Need to Understand” — this article is available here: http://www.tmcnet.com/topics/articles/2013/08/15/349616-three-areas-intellectual-property-need-understand.htm. Much of what is published there has been covered in earlier posts on this blog, such as in “Clearance Search Review” and “Invention Disclosure Highlights and Considerations”.
However, there is also additional new perspective pertaining to the biggest misconception in terms of how companies can understand, enforce, and protect their patents and intellectual property. This largest misconception in terms of how companies can understand, enforce, and protect their intellectual property is one held by a large portion of companies’ R&D engineering communities – that is, that an inventor’s novel and non-obvious invention is obvious and one that would have been formulated by any other engineer in a similar situation. This misconception leads to many inventions never being considered for patent protection. The issue can at least partially be overcome by continual inventor training to educate engineers to recognize the features of designed products and services that indicate the desirability of protecting aspects of these designed products and services with patents. This training should include information about patents, their history and intent, patentability rules, and examples of patented solutions within the given company’s technology areas. In particular, patent examples often inspire an “aha moment” within engineers that lead them to become prolific inventors and patent protectors.
About one month ago I posted on this blog about some problems with non-patent literature [Link]. I also included a link to that post on the LinkedIn “Patent Searching” group, which spurred a lot of continued discussion from multiple members of that group. Those comments are not shown on The Patent Analyst blog, but are available for review on the “Patent Searching” LinkedIn group. I can recommend this particular group for those that are interested in patent search discussions and job opportunities — a link to the group is available here. Note that you will need to be a member of LinkedIn and of the “Patent Searching” group to peruse the discussions. Enjoy!
This is my first post on the newly-created “The Patent Analyst” blog. This blog will include posts on various topics pertaining to patent program processes and best practices, particularly directed at corporations, but also at least partially applicable to individual inventors. Many of these processes will focus on patent search and analysis, and I will also provide opinions on how I believe patent examination can be improved.
You can find out more about me, Scott Hicks, a registered US Patent Agent, at the “About” page.
Also, constructive comments are welcome, but before you add your comments please read over and follow the Disclaimer and the Terms & Conditions.