Wasn't really sure where to post this but I thought tech talk might give it the best chance of the right person seeing it:

I'm thinking of filing a patent and I know there are a few people on here who have at least a little bit of experience with it.

If I try to file the patent myself without enlisting the help of a patent attorney is it going to be so full of holes that a patent attorney working for a corporation could pick it apart with ease therefore making it worthless?

For anyone who does have experience with patent filing, did you do it yourself or hire someone? If so, how hard/time consuming was it to do yourself or how expensive was it to hire someone?

Basically....if you've done this before just give me some pointers on where to start and how the process works.

8/6/2010 12:07:08 AM

I haven't obtained a patent (yet) but when I took it to the lawyers to get it looked at I was basically quoted on a few things.

1) How complex it was
2) How tough it would be to do something similar (think of a fan; there's 100 different ways to move air - but technically they may all fall under the same patent(s))

You can also pay them a regular fee to make sure they keep tabs on it. Similar patents can be contested before being approved; but it costs cash. Of which they're quite fond of.

If you've got something dead simple, unique, and patentable than you're probably in good shape. If you're Apple and you try to patent swiping a finger to unlock then you'll spend a fortune needlessly defending it.

8/6/2010 12:12:48 AM

i would start by going to the library and checking out books on how to patent things yourself. in cameron village its right up the stairs, turn left and immediately left again and then youll see a whole section of DIY books (lol lots on divorce)

8/6/2010 4:17:34 AM

Quote :

"If I try to file the patent myself without enlisting the help of a patent attorney is it going to be so full of holes that a patent attorney working for a corporation could pick it apart with ease therefore making it worthless? For anyone who does have experience with patent filing, did you do it yourself or hire someone? If so, how hard/time consuming was it to do yourself or how expensive was it to hire someone?"

I haven't filed a patent but I know quite a few people that have. You might even check with Noen. I can't recall if he has or not, but he knows a lot of the same people I do.


From what I gather, yes, your average Joe Blow needs a patent attorney for the very first sentence I quoted. That attorney should also help you to research to make sure that what you're submitting hasn't already been patented.


Also be aware that the process is pretty long. It can take over a year (probably longer than that even) to be awarded a patent.

8/6/2010 9:23:47 AM

i work with people who develop patents on a regular basis

they aren't the lawyers, but the patent holders

a casual conversation about patents with one of them leads me to believe that you'll pay anywhere from $10-25k for a relatively simple patent (including both patent and legal fees)

it may just be the industry, but i can believe that number

8/6/2010 9:31:14 AM

Yes you absolutely need a patent attorney. Bare minimum is going to run you ~5k if you do ALL the legwork yourself. Before you even think about it, spend time on the uspto site to make sure it hasn't already been patented.

Also keep in mind that you can't just patent anything. If you're patenting a process, you have to actually prove it works. Patenting a technology or product feature, you have to prove it works. If it's a design patent (for style, appearance or ornamental features) forget it,
They are nearly impossible to enforce.

Aldo keep in mind that a us patent is only going to protect you here. If you have to get this thing made, you'll need to file for patents in every country that supplies parts, manufacturing or that you want to sell in. This is why most patent costs balloon to 25-50k or more, for international patents

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM. Reason : A]

8/6/2010 12:19:55 PM

just curious here, but what is the actual cost to get the patent? Not the research, etc that it takes to get to the point of being awarded the patent, but the exact thing?

Use a concert ticket as a (very simplified) example:

Ticket: $30
Convenience fee: $5
Tax: $5
Bullshit noise fee: $5
Total: $45

Total cost to go to the concert is $45, but the ticket itself was only $30. Using similar logic/example, what does the patent cost?

8/6/2010 8:49:09 PM

It depends. The schedule of fees can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm#patapp

For an electronically filed Utility Patent, with ZERO errors in the application and ZERO conflict with existing patents (both of which are nearly impossible), for a small entity (individual basically):

$82 Filing Fee
$270 Search Fee
$110 Examination Fee
$755 Issue Fee
$300 Publication Fee

= $1517 to get an approved Utility Patent through.

It's $960 for a Design Patent.

And then at 3.5 years you owe $490, at 7.5 years you owe $1240, and at 11.5 years you owe $2055 just to keep it active.

But all this stuff is a pipe dream number.

If there is anything wrong, and there will be, you've got 30 days to respond or they hit you with extension fees: $65, $245, $555, $865, $1175 for each month you need to extend your respond.

And you get ONE response. If more problems are found, the application is rejected. Or they can just reject it outright for any of a million reasons without asking for clarification. Each appeal is $270 plus the brief in support (which is all but required) is another $270.

8/6/2010 10:07:06 PM

saw this on wral, software related patents

http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8105026/

Quote :

"During my tech days, I co-authored four software patents. Each cost my startup about $15,000—which seemed like a fortune in those days. I didn’t really expect these to give me any advantage; after all if my competitors had half a brain, they would simply learn all they could from my patent filing and do things better. But I needed to raise financing, and VCs wouldn’t give me the time of day unless I could tell a convincing story about how we, alone, owned the intellectual property for our secret sauce. We got the financing, and the plaques of the patents looked great in our reception area, so the expense was worth it. But there was definitely no competitive advantage. Patents make a lot of sense in many industries; they are needed to protect the designs of industrial equipment, pharmaceutical formulations, biotechnology products and methods, biomedical devices, consumer products (toothpaste, shampoo, contact lenses, etc.), advanced materials & composites, and of course, widgets (lighting fixtures & elements, batteries, toys, tools, etc.). But in software these are just nuclear weapons in an arms race. They don’t foster innovation, they inhibit it. That’s because things change rapidly in this industry. Speed and technological obsolescence are the only protections that matter. Fledgling startups have to worry more about some big player or patent troll pulling out a big gun and bankrupting them with a frivolous lawsuit than they do about someone stealing their ideas."

you could be a patent troll

Quote :

"Pam Samuelson, one of the co-authors of the report, says that her conclusion from the research is that the world may be better off without software patents; that the biggest beneficiaries of software patents are patent lawyers and patent trolls, not entrepreneurs."

[Edited on August 9, 2010 at 8:26 AM. Reason : s]

8/9/2010 8:24:28 AM

the EU doesnt have software patents i don't believe and i think pretty soon we'll see the gene patents are inhibiting great research as well

8/9/2010 10:07:43 AM

^They do. And software patents aren't nearly used for the nuclear arms race you would think. They're used mostly to keep employees from defecting from company A to company B and taking their technology with them.

8/9/2010 3:28:21 PM

i think its vastly different though, its something like netflix wouldnt be able to patent their software to run on a users pc but a company who uses data aquisition hardware to go with their software could. something like that.

Quote :

"United Kingdom patent law is interpreted to have the same effect as the European Patent Convention such that "programs for computers" are excluded from patentability to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program "as such". Current case law in the UK states that an (alleged) invention will only be actually regarded as an invention if it provides a contribution that is not excluded and which is also technical. A computer program implementing a business process is therefore not an invention, but a computer program implementing an industrial process may well be."

8/9/2010 4:12:31 PM

My g/f is a patent attorney....you have to be absolutely fucking nuts to try to do any of that shit on your own

8/9/2010 10:40:08 PM

lol thats actually why i'm thinking about going into IP law, it's one of those things where you're taking a HUGE risk doing anything without a lawyer (thus ensuring some level of demand at all times, unless innovation is so completely stifled)

8/10/2010 10:13:41 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Patent-Yourself-Step-Step-Filing/dp/1413310583

Recommended reading even if you are planning to use a lawyer. No, I do not own any patents, but this will teach you a lot.

8/10/2010 12:27:47 PM