Apollo 50: The role of intellectual property in space commerce

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will be hosting an event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the moon landing on July 23, 2019, from 2 pm to 4:30 pm (ET) at the USPTO headquarters, in Alexandria, VA. The event will also focus on space innovation, technology transfer from the Apollo missions, and an overview of the current administration’s policy on space exploration and space commerce.

Information regarding the event can be found here. Those interested in registering for the event, can do so here. There will be a live Facebook event here.

Best Practices for Design Patents- Conclusion

By Debby Winters

We have discussed various aspects of design patents in this series of blog posts. In short, design patents should be considered to provide an alternative or additional means of protection for an invention, and generally have a lower cost, higher allowance rate, and faster timeline than utility applications. The guidelines outlined in this series should be considered when preparing an application for an ornamental design. However, you should always consult with a licensed patent attorney before moving forward with your application. We would be happy to serve as your patent attorney. Good luck!

Best Practices for Design Patents- Include Additional Embodiments

By Debby Winters

To continue our series of blog posts on design patents, in this post we will discuss including additional embodiments.  Similar concepts with slightly different modifications, such as certain features being shown in solid and broken lines, are considered additional embodiments and could be filed in the same application. The potential outcome of including additional embodiments in a design application that does not exist in a utility application is the potential for receiving a restriction requirement.  The Patent Office may or may not issue a restriction requirement, depending on how closely related the designs are. The subjectivity will also depend upon the particular Examiner assigned to your application. Including different embodiments allows different levels of protection for the same invention. There is no downside to including embodiments of different scope in the same application. The Patent Office will issue a restriction if warranted, and subsequent divisional applications can be filed that are directed to the restricted embodiments.

Alternatively, an Appendix including additional or related embodiments may be filed in the application. The Appendix will serve as support for future drawing amendments or continuation applications and should be canceled by the Examiner upon allowance of the application.

What Every Startup Needs To Know: IP Pitfalls- Poorly Written Or No Agreements- Part Nine

By Debby Winters

Using poorly written agreements or no agreements at all can be a disaster for the startup. Not only is the valuation of a startup based on the IP that it owns, but also on the agreements with IP clauses. Examples are not just limited to things you typically think of as IP agreements but can include employment, consulting, funding, collaboration, settlement, licensing, research, and material transfer agreements. Thus, poorly drafted or non-existent IP-related agreements can be problematic for a startup.

Because of a lack of sufficient funding, many startups attempt to save legal expenses by using template IP-related agreements from a variety of non-professional sources, including the internet. However, such agreements can fail to include clauses that adequately protect the startup’s interest and in many cases, can include clauses that jeopardize a startup’s IP. Thus, when using IP-related agreement templates, the startups should have such agreements at the very least vetted by IP professionals. Startups can also do themselves a disservice by using an attorney who is not familiar with the nuances of IP law.

Many IP-related agreements, particularly research agreements, generally include confidentiality, publication, and IP clauses. The startup should review confidentiality and publication clauses to ensure that confidential information, including trade secret information, is protected from disclosure and that the startup has the right to review manuscripts and other materials containing confidential information before publication. With respect to the IP clauses, the startup should make sure the language allows for retaining its own IP and for protecting jointly developed IP.

Furthermore, with respect to patent license agreements involving a third-party licensor, startups need to make sure that the license agreement provides all the rights needed to commercialize the licensed technology, includes future improvements to the technology, and retains the right to sublicense the technology. The agreement should also have a sufficient termination clause in the event the startup needs to opt-out of the agreement.  The agreement should also specify the relevant field of use and possibly other fields for future expansion. Importantly, the startup should review patents to ensure that the commercialized product materials, methods, and tools are properly claimed with patent life remaining. This should be drafted and reviewed by an experienced IP attorney.

In conclusion to the series of blog posts dealing with common IP pitfalls for a startup, the process of bringing a new startup business to life and in launching new products to the marketplace can be an exciting time. However, many startups are so focused on bringing a new product or service to market that they fail to take the necessary steps to protect the associated IP. Failure to put an IP plan in place can cripple valuation and expose the startup to potential third-party infringement risk. In contrast, startups can protect and exploit their IP assets to build value and revenue by developing an IP plan as part of their conception, creating an action plan to protect IP assets including protection of confidential information, securing ownership rights to the IP, conducting freedom-to-operate searches, and ensuring properly drafted IP-related agreements are in place.

If you need help with your IP or with protecting it, let me know.

Failure To Establish Clear IP Ownership-What Every Startup Needs To Know Part 7

By Debby Winters

In the last post we examined how independent contractors could try to claim IP rights. In this post we will look at IP rights as it relates to employees of the startup.

The startup eventually will have employees and it is wise to have these employees enter into work-for-hire-type agreements that explicitly confer rights in the works to the startup. That can be accomplished through an employment agreement or through separate agreements.

Additionally, startups should have employees sign confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with clauses that clearly state the obligation of the employee is to assign all developed IP to the startup. Failure to include such assignment clauses can create ownership problems for the startup, especially if the employee leaves the company to work for a competitor or cannot be subsequently located

The agreements should also state that the startup’s confidential information is only for use for the benefit of the startup; require disclosure of ideas, inventions and discoveries related to the agreement or employment; and include a statement of ownership rights over ideas, inventions and discoveries. Recordable assignment of IP rights should be required to show clear ownership of inventions and other IP developed by its contractors and employees.

It is often advisable to get help from an experienced IP attorney in the drafting of such agreements.

We have talked about establishing clear lines of ownership for the startup IP, next we will look at the failure to identify third-party rights.

Failure To Establish Clear IP Ownership-What Every Startup Needs To Know Part 4

By Debby Winters

Failure to establish IP ownership rights can be a deal breaker in many business transactions. Due diligence analysis generally seeks to verify not only the startup’s ownership rights to each piece of IP but also to determine if there are any restrictions on its use. Typically IP ownership issues can be averted if addressed early, sometimes even before the incorporation of the startup.

Here are a few of the places where ownership should be established:

  1. Current Employment for the Founders
  2. Employees of the Startup
  3. Independent Contractors
  4. Startup Founders

In this blog, we will discuss the first topic and take up the other topics in subsequent blog posts.

Founders of many startups continue to work for their current employer while they establish the new company. The employer may have required that the Founder/employee sign a confidentiality or invention assignment agreement in which the employee agreed to assign all new ideas and inventions related to the employer’s business to the employer. This is particularly problematic if the startup product or service is closely related to the employer’s business as the employer may try to claim rights to the startup’s IP.

Thus, it is important that founders carefully review their current employment agreements and fully understand employment obligations, including IP assignment clauses and non-compete language. Employees should also consider discussing personal projects/inventions with their employer upfront to avoid ownership issues later down the road. Generally, employer resources or company time should not be used to develop projects for the startup company without the pre-approval of an employer and without the employer’s agreement not to claim ownership rights.

In the next blog, we will look at establishing ownership of IP with employees of the startup.

IP Plan- What Every Startup Needs To Know Part 3

By Debby Winters

Startups, from conception, need to determine several things about their intellectual property (IP) including (1) the role that IP will play in their business, (2) the IP tools that support their business model, and (3) their overall IP strategy. In many cases, a startup’s intangible assets may be the only assets and failure to fully consider IP during launch is the source of many missteps and oversights. In contrast, a well-structured IP strategy or plan is a proactive step toward seed funding and avoiding loss of IP assets, while minimizing the risk of third-party IP infringement.

A good IP plan should identify existing and future IP assets; provide a strategy for maintaining and protecting these assets; outline a strategy for conducting freedom-to-operate searches; and establish an IP-related budget. The initial step of identifying existing and future IP is critical as it can help the startup develop a plan for allocation of resources and capital to support the IP assets. Importantly, the information can be cross-referenced against the startup’s business and product development plans to develop, maintain, protect, and leverage IP assets. For example, if the IP assets include trade secrets, the IP plan should include procedures to protect the information such as the proper marking of the documents, establishing check-in/out procedures, limiting access to documents, and storing the documents in a secure facility or network section.

The IP strategy should also include a plan for periodic review of all agreements that relate to the IP to ensure all necessary legal IP safeguards are in place for new and departing employees, consultants, developers, and contractors. It is common to review the license agreements, but many times employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, and nondisclosure agreement are overlooked. This is unfortunate since employees, contractors, consultants, and developers can know many secret IP details that you want to keep a secret or protectable.

Equally as important to the IP plan is that it needs to be continually reviewed and revised as the business evolves. Finally, although a strategically thought out IP plan may include a business’s conscious decision not to pursue registered IP rights, oversight resulting in failure to protect these IP rights can be devastating.

Next time we will discuss the potential failure to establish clear IP ownership.