Discussion
The Moose said:
Does anyone have any experience applying for patents, specifically in the tech field?
New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
Try talking to Marks & Clerk, not cheap but very good. They're who I've used. New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
First thing they'll do after a review is tell you whether it's actually worth going through with it. They have some extremely talented people who should be able to give you a proper assessment & advice whatever the nature of the thing is then take you through the whole process if you proceed.
They can also sort out applying in various international jurisdictions, they aren't just UK focused.
OP - Have you heard of the IP Audit scheme? Once you have spoken with a patent attorney (most will give an initial consultation) this can be a cost effective way of undertaking a professional Patent search and planning your IP protection strategy.
It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
pete_esp said:
OP - Have you heard of the IP Audit scheme? Once you have spoken with a patent attorney (most will give an initial consultation) this can be a cost effective way of undertaking a professional Patent search and planning your IP protection strategy.
It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
I have not - I don't know if it's relevant as I'm not UK based.It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
JoshSm said:
The Moose said:
Does anyone have any experience applying for patents, specifically in the tech field?
New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
Try talking to Marks & Clerk, not cheap but very good. They're who I've used. New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
First thing they'll do after a review is tell you whether it's actually worth going through with it. They have some extremely talented people who should be able to give you a proper assessment & advice whatever the nature of the thing is then take you through the whole process if you proceed.
They can also sort out applying in various international jurisdictions, they aren't just UK focused.
Happy to put you in touch with Mrs Renmure who is a patent attorney and director of one of the largest pan European IP firms with representation and experience in the US with global tech companies as clients if that would be helpful. She’s given general advice and pointers to a few PHers in the past. Obviously free of charge. Drop me a message if you want.
Edited by renmure on Wednesday 9th July 23:06
The Moose said:
New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
Patents are for "inventions". I'm pretty confident you'll find applying an existing technology is not patentable.This link gives an outline of what can be protected, and how,
https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overvi...
Which jurisdiction are you in OP?
Patents are territorial, and different territories have different rules, thus some things protectable here are not elsewhere, and very much vice-versa, so be wary of taking all this UK specific experience as being wholly relevant to you.
If you're US based (I think you are?) then as is common in most places, you should get 30 mins free with most attorney firms to explore the art of the possible, check what is/ is not chargeable though, as 3 minute increments are very much the norm for NY, DC and all Bay area firms, who expect their fee earners to earn fees, usually around 2200 billable hours/ year. Meaning the bills can rack up very quickly, and almost no-one does fixed prices.
Most people's experience of US firms here will be their UK based agent has an arrangement for a US firm to handle work in that terrirory, with skimming of course.
Where you would be insane to do so, the US, as with the UK, does not require you to be a patent attorney to make a patent application. You'd be amazed how many attorneys are quiet about that, here and there.
You would f
k it right up though, but it does mean the USPTO website has a wealth of information to help 'the little guy' understand the system, the requirements and there is plenty of worked examples types. Thus either you, or someone you delegate it to, should take a good look on that to get a steer before being bum raped by whatever firm will do so.
The more I think about it the more I am sure you are US based, and just be aware that the US has one rule which can cause problems elsewhere- you have 12 months from when you've made your invention public to file your patent application. In the UK, and Europe, and most of the civilised world to be frank, you have to file first. That's an aspect of "novelty", which means new. New to most places means "not made available to the public". Whereas again, the US considers the little guy, who might like to try and get a reaction before committing to the painful expense of protection, hence they have this "grace" period. But, that means if you use that grace period, you will struggle to get protection elsewhere. There being myriad international agreements that let you file somewhere like the USPTO, then within 12 months of that file applications linked to that which can give you broader protection. But, that doesn't negate the individual, territorial rules, so if you've shown it off in public, then try and get a patent in the UK for example, if anyone were to challenge it by discovering you had got it out there, your UK protection would be binned.
Showing how important it is to get some advice on this.
Naturally if you're not in the US, this may also be of naff all use to you, so just confirm, and some decent direction can be given to get you started I am sure.
Patents are territorial, and different territories have different rules, thus some things protectable here are not elsewhere, and very much vice-versa, so be wary of taking all this UK specific experience as being wholly relevant to you.
If you're US based (I think you are?) then as is common in most places, you should get 30 mins free with most attorney firms to explore the art of the possible, check what is/ is not chargeable though, as 3 minute increments are very much the norm for NY, DC and all Bay area firms, who expect their fee earners to earn fees, usually around 2200 billable hours/ year. Meaning the bills can rack up very quickly, and almost no-one does fixed prices.
Most people's experience of US firms here will be their UK based agent has an arrangement for a US firm to handle work in that terrirory, with skimming of course.
Where you would be insane to do so, the US, as with the UK, does not require you to be a patent attorney to make a patent application. You'd be amazed how many attorneys are quiet about that, here and there.
You would f
k it right up though, but it does mean the USPTO website has a wealth of information to help 'the little guy' understand the system, the requirements and there is plenty of worked examples types. Thus either you, or someone you delegate it to, should take a good look on that to get a steer before being bum raped by whatever firm will do so.The more I think about it the more I am sure you are US based, and just be aware that the US has one rule which can cause problems elsewhere- you have 12 months from when you've made your invention public to file your patent application. In the UK, and Europe, and most of the civilised world to be frank, you have to file first. That's an aspect of "novelty", which means new. New to most places means "not made available to the public". Whereas again, the US considers the little guy, who might like to try and get a reaction before committing to the painful expense of protection, hence they have this "grace" period. But, that means if you use that grace period, you will struggle to get protection elsewhere. There being myriad international agreements that let you file somewhere like the USPTO, then within 12 months of that file applications linked to that which can give you broader protection. But, that doesn't negate the individual, territorial rules, so if you've shown it off in public, then try and get a patent in the UK for example, if anyone were to challenge it by discovering you had got it out there, your UK protection would be binned.
Showing how important it is to get some advice on this.
Naturally if you're not in the US, this may also be of naff all use to you, so just confirm, and some decent direction can be given to get you started I am sure.
Edited by macron on Wednesday 9th July 23:03
Panamax said:
The Moose said:
New application of an existing technology if it makes any difference.
Patents are for "inventions". I'm pretty confident you'll find applying an existing technology is not patentable.This link gives an outline of what can be protected, and how,
https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overvi...
The Moose said:
pete_esp said:
OP - Have you heard of the IP Audit scheme? Once you have spoken with a patent attorney (most will give an initial consultation) this can be a cost effective way of undertaking a professional Patent search and planning your IP protection strategy.
It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
I have not - I don't know if it's relevant as I'm not UK based.It's part grant funded and you get a further grant on completion to help implement the recommendations of the IP Audit.
Macron has given some excellent advice here and you have an offer to talk with a patent attorney too.
Keep us posted but most importantly keep your invention under wraps and NDAs until you know where you stand on the patent pov and best of luck going forward.
renmure said:
Happy to put you in touch with Mrs Renmure who is a patent attorney and director of one of the largest pan European IP firms with representation and experience in the US with global tech companies as clients if that would be helpful. She s given general advice and pointers to a few PHers in the past. Obviously free of charge. Drop me a message if you want.
Would it be inappropriate of me to ask if I could buy your wife lunch 
Message on it's way thank you
macron said:
Which jurisdiction are you in OP?
Patents are territorial, and different territories have different rules, thus some things protectable here are not elsewhere, and very much vice-versa, so be wary of taking all this UK specific experience as being wholly relevant to you.
If you're US based (I think you are?) then as is common in most places, you should get 30 mins free with most attorney firms to explore the art of the possible, check what is/ is not chargeable though, as 3 minute increments are very much the norm for NY, DC and all Bay area firms, who expect their fee earners to earn fees, usually around 2200 billable hours/ year. Meaning the bills can rack up very quickly, and almost no-one does fixed prices.
Most people's experience of US firms here will be their UK based agent has an arrangement for a US firm to handle work in that terrirory, with skimming of course.
Where you would be insane to do so, the US, as with the UK, does not require you to be a patent attorney to make a patent application. You'd be amazed how many attorneys are quiet about that, here and there.
You would fk it right up though, but it does mean the USPTO website has a wealth of information to help 'the little guy' understand the system, the requirements and there is plenty of worked examples types. Thus either you, or someone you delegate it to, should take a good look on that to get a steer before being bum raped by whatever firm will do so.
The more I think about it the more I am sure you are US based, and just be aware that the US has one rule which can cause problems elsewhere- you have 12 months from when you've made your invention public to file your patent application. In the UK, and Europe, and most of the civilised world to be frank, you have to file first. That's an aspect of "novelty", which means new. New to most places means "not made available to the public". Whereas again, the US considers the little guy, who might like to try and get a reaction before committing to the painful expense of protection, hence they have this "grace" period. But, that means if you use that grace period, you will struggle to get protection elsewhere. There being myriad international agreements that let you file somewhere like the USPTO, then within 12 months of that file applications linked to that which can give you broader protection. But, that doesn't negate the individual, territorial rules, so if you've shown it off in public, then try and get a patent in the UK for example, if anyone were to challenge it by discovering you had got it out there, your UK protection would be binned.
Showing how important it is to get some advice on this.
Naturally if you're not in the US, this may also be of naff all use to you, so just confirm, and some decent direction can be given to get you started I am sure.
This is super helpful advice and massively useful information thank you.Patents are territorial, and different territories have different rules, thus some things protectable here are not elsewhere, and very much vice-versa, so be wary of taking all this UK specific experience as being wholly relevant to you.
If you're US based (I think you are?) then as is common in most places, you should get 30 mins free with most attorney firms to explore the art of the possible, check what is/ is not chargeable though, as 3 minute increments are very much the norm for NY, DC and all Bay area firms, who expect their fee earners to earn fees, usually around 2200 billable hours/ year. Meaning the bills can rack up very quickly, and almost no-one does fixed prices.
Most people's experience of US firms here will be their UK based agent has an arrangement for a US firm to handle work in that terrirory, with skimming of course.
Where you would be insane to do so, the US, as with the UK, does not require you to be a patent attorney to make a patent application. You'd be amazed how many attorneys are quiet about that, here and there.
You would f
k it right up though, but it does mean the USPTO website has a wealth of information to help 'the little guy' understand the system, the requirements and there is plenty of worked examples types. Thus either you, or someone you delegate it to, should take a good look on that to get a steer before being bum raped by whatever firm will do so.The more I think about it the more I am sure you are US based, and just be aware that the US has one rule which can cause problems elsewhere- you have 12 months from when you've made your invention public to file your patent application. In the UK, and Europe, and most of the civilised world to be frank, you have to file first. That's an aspect of "novelty", which means new. New to most places means "not made available to the public". Whereas again, the US considers the little guy, who might like to try and get a reaction before committing to the painful expense of protection, hence they have this "grace" period. But, that means if you use that grace period, you will struggle to get protection elsewhere. There being myriad international agreements that let you file somewhere like the USPTO, then within 12 months of that file applications linked to that which can give you broader protection. But, that doesn't negate the individual, territorial rules, so if you've shown it off in public, then try and get a patent in the UK for example, if anyone were to challenge it by discovering you had got it out there, your UK protection would be binned.
Showing how important it is to get some advice on this.
Naturally if you're not in the US, this may also be of naff all use to you, so just confirm, and some decent direction can be given to get you started I am sure.
I am US based however I am looking to protect a new innovative use of an existing technology that would be applicable to a large part of the world (civilized or otherwise as you describe it!). Most revenue would initially come from the first world...which I know will increase protection costs. US would be the largest single market at least initially.
The idea may not be patentable in some jurisdictions...and maybe not protectable at all - I really don't know as I haven't really been down this road before.
I believe the US has an improvement patent (I maybe using the incorrect terminology) where something existing is used for a new purpose. I don't know if other jurisdictions have the same.
The Moose said:
I believe the US has an improvement patent (I maybe using the incorrect terminology) where something existing is used for a new purpose. I don't know if other jurisdictions have the same.
Yes, an "improvement" can be patented if it is a new, small invention that can be added to an existing invention (even if the improvement in itself has no independent usefulness).The Moose said:
renmure said:
Happy to put you in touch with Mrs Renmure who is a patent attorney and director of one of the largest pan European IP firms with representation and experience in the US with global tech companies as clients if that would be helpful. She s given general advice and pointers to a few PHers in the past. Obviously free of charge. Drop me a message if you want.
Would it be inappropriate of me to ask if I could buy your wife lunch Message on it's way thank you
I've sent you a reply so your people can get in touch with my people.
The Moose said:
This is super helpful advice and massively useful information thank you.
I am US based however I am looking to protect a new innovative use of an existing technology that would be applicable to a large part of the world (civilized or otherwise as you describe it!). Most revenue would initially come from the first world...which I know will increase protection costs. US would be the largest single market at least initially.
The idea may not be patentable in some jurisdictions...and maybe not protectable at all - I really don't know as I haven't really been down this road before.
I believe the US has an improvement patent (I maybe using the incorrect terminology) where something existing is used for a new purpose. I don't know if other jurisdictions have the same.
Yep that's not a problem, in general terms you'd file a first application somewhere which should, within 6 months ISH get you a search back showing what other things out there are relevant, which may impact the chances of you getting protection. You get this 12 month window to file elsewhere, giving you a chance to know if it has a shot.I am US based however I am looking to protect a new innovative use of an existing technology that would be applicable to a large part of the world (civilized or otherwise as you describe it!). Most revenue would initially come from the first world...which I know will increase protection costs. US would be the largest single market at least initially.
The idea may not be patentable in some jurisdictions...and maybe not protectable at all - I really don't know as I haven't really been down this road before.
I believe the US has an improvement patent (I maybe using the incorrect terminology) where something existing is used for a new purpose. I don't know if other jurisdictions have the same.
The 12 month point can get very expensive, not that any point isn't, because you then decided if you'll use one of these international systems to apply for other possible jurisdictions. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/pct_contrac... is the biggy for the civilised world, 158 contracting states. Not that you'd want or are likely to afford 158 granted patents, they all ultimately end up as national rights, with costs to maintain them thereafter.
No offence to the hawker, speak to a US attorney, I'm sure the UK person can put you in touch with one, if the invention was made in the US you have no choice but to file first at the USPTO
https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/us-inventions-...
So find someone local, and find out if they'll give you that 30ish mins free to explain what's what.
Something else for the OP to consider.
Getting a patent granted is the first step, not the last. Inventions are there to be exploited, which usually requires capital. If something is successful it will be copied as sure as eggs are eggs. Some copying will be cheap and st. But some may not be. And that is where things can get otherworldly expensive.
If you have to sue for patent infringement you *will* need a financial backer. Patent litigation is famously expensive. And that just you suing. In England many defendants supplement their claim that they aren’t infringing by saying that if they are, the patent is invalid because it lacks one or both of novelty or an inventive step. And the fact that a patent office granted you a patent counts for zero in that battle, which can be hideously expensive.
Moral: have a lot of money behind you, whether yours or someone else’s.
Getting a patent granted is the first step, not the last. Inventions are there to be exploited, which usually requires capital. If something is successful it will be copied as sure as eggs are eggs. Some copying will be cheap and s
t. But some may not be. And that is where things can get otherworldly expensive. If you have to sue for patent infringement you *will* need a financial backer. Patent litigation is famously expensive. And that just you suing. In England many defendants supplement their claim that they aren’t infringing by saying that if they are, the patent is invalid because it lacks one or both of novelty or an inventive step. And the fact that a patent office granted you a patent counts for zero in that battle, which can be hideously expensive.
Moral: have a lot of money behind you, whether yours or someone else’s.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff