The world is progressing and new trends keep popping up. Before doing any protection, we may review whether the idea worth to protect and at which stage are we going to protect ... idea/ concept, prototype, first launch product ...
It is already very hard to turn idea into viable product and even harder to build viable market. Should we really protect something that are still in high uncertainty?
However, if the idea/ concept/ technology is so compelling and play a critical role in your core products (preferred products that already in the market), by all means get it patented!
I am however not very supportive for Startup to protect its idea.
It is critical for the idea to be developed further before approaching a patent attorney, because an idea alone isn't enough for IP protection. Developing the idea further first along with understanding your potential market competition, where your technology could fit (positioning) and understanding the IP landscape as best as possible would be best as a few first steps. Having a good amount of information before approaching a patent attorney for patent protection of a product is a good idea, as in the USA, it can cost at least $20k (additional charges for lawyers). Therefore, it is also important to understand your company's financial position before having a meeting with a patent attorney as well.
no you should start to see if it has the makings of a business first, only then start to spend money. Ideas are ten a penny, cannot be patented and are easily copied a business on the other hand has value, a product requires drawings plans and a working model to be patented
Patents are costly and you just open yourself for future harassment. Keep your idea proprietary and you'll save a lot of stress and money.
It may well be advisable to consult with an intellectual property attorney who is also a patent attorney. Some ideas and their associated inventions will not merit patent protection if they do not meet the threshold requirement for patent protection under the law: subject matter eligibility and utility. By way of example, business method patents are expected to become increasingly difficult to obtain as the result of several court decisions over the past few years starting with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kampos.
An individual or company that is willing to spend funds on patent protection should have a good understanding of the patent risks involved so as to be in a good later position to try and overcome anticipated rejections by the application’s USPTO examiner. If the “invention” idea is in its early stages of development, a patent attorney’s advice as to any red flags may also prove to be invaluable by providing clarity as to the requirements for obtaining a patent based on the subject matter eligibility requirements as well as the requirements for novelty and non-obviousness.
Moreover, some ideas, even if they do not meet the subject matter and utility requirements for patent protection, may nevertheless quality for other types of IP protection such as copyright protection (when, for example, an idea for a book is converted into the actual book), design patent protection, or even trade secret protection. It is emphasized that trade secret protection and patent protection are not necessarily mutually exclusive types of intellectual property protection. Again, a consultation with an IP attorney should provide clarity as to IP-protection options.
This answer does not focus on trademark protection, generally categorized as a type of intellectual property. Trademark law’s overall purpose involves the protection of both the registered trademark owner and the purchaser of the good or service associated with the registered trademark and is associated with the sale of goods and services in interstate commerce. Thus a patented product that is sold as a good in interstate commerce will most likely be under sold under the name of a registered trademark.
Since seeking patent protection in your case may be appropriate, I would like to include in this answer some additional information as it applies specifically to patent law. First, on March 16, 2013, the United States became a first-inventor-to-file country. As such, provisional patent applications may well be filed in much larger numbers even by established companies for the purpose of obtaining the all important filing date in the event a later utility patent application is filed claiming the priority date of the provisional patent application. To get the benefit of provisional patent application’s priority date, however, the provisional patent application must have adequately disclosed the invention that is described in the later utility application. Otherwise, the utility application’s actual date of filing, and not the provisional application’s filing date, may control, thereby defeating the purpose behind filing the provisional patent application in the first place. Again, it may be advisable to retain a patent attorney to either draft a proper provisional application and/or at the very least review the draft prepared by the applicant himself or herself.
Second, it must be emphasized that patentability ultimately goes to the question of novelty and non-obviousness as determined by the prior art. Do not make the mistake that the absence of a similar product to the proposed invention means that the procurement patent on the proposed invention is going to be a slam dunk. For a wide variety of reasons, many patented inventions just do not find a market. Prior art for the purposes of patent application examination includes, but is not limited, to U.S. patent publications (both issued patents and patent application publications) and even scholarly articles on related inventions/concepts. The USPTO’s examiner will conduct his/her own prior art search and use the information to determine if the proposed invention is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
It is therefore recommended that a prior art search be conducted and the results evaluated before the applicant spends a lot of funds on filing a patent application and developing a product only to have the patent application rejected. Such information will allow the patent application drafter to distinguish the prior art from the present invention in the application and to be ready to respond to any reasonably anticipated rejections. In addition, such information may be used by the inventor to even perhaps invent around the existing prior art so as to increase the chances of obtaining patent protection.
Third, even with the new law, documentation of the concept and invention-related activities is still exceedingly important. Remember that any patent is to issue to the actual inventor(s). The new laws do not mean that the patent is to issue to the first- person-to-file but to the first-inventor-to-file. New procedures are in place to address questions as to inventorship that may arise under the new law. The best way to help establish actual inventorship is still through signed and witnessed written documentation of the ideas, concepts, steps take to reduce to practice, etc.
In closing, please keep in mind that by understanding the risks associated with patent procurement upfront, the inventor and/or the inventor’s assignee can develop a proactive strategy rather than a reactive strategy for addressing reasonably foreseeable issues during the patent prosecution process. Such an approach may also help attract investor interest. Ideally, the inventor and patent attorney relationship is one that is based on a teamwork approach starting with the drafting of any patent application.
IF YOU CAN FIND ONE WHO WILL GIVE YOU A FREE 30 MIN CONSULTATION
You are sooooo far away from needing a lawyer. You may need Confidentiality Agreements, however, silencing anyone with whom you speak from divulging your intellectual property trade secrets to others, Focus on the creative invention, not the incorporation or name of your creative spark. Focus on the spark and turning it into something at which time once it becomes "real," you then seek a patent.
Incorporation bogs us down with so much bureaucracy. I'd side-step it for now until it's shaping into a reality.
IMHO all of these incorporate commercials are whetting the appetites only of the advertiser. It's so easy to get bogged down with the law. Be careful with whom you share the information, and ensure that you have an NDA clause for every individual with whom you speak.
You can pass up the patent while you are looking at how to build your invention. Furthermore,
The "good cop" in me says "sure, spend a bundle up front to see how committed you are to translating the idea into profit. The "bad cop" says that only 3-4% of independent inventors ever recover the $10,000 or so it costs them to obtain a patent, so sell like crazy and forget about a patent as a mere license to sue or get sued. The real answer is quite complicated and somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Good luck.
No, ideas alone aren't patentable (in Europe at least). A technical solution to a problem is potentially patentable. Get a better idea as to what the technical nature of your solution might be, then go to see a patent attorney who will advise you as to whether it is patentable and then start to look at some prior art, etc. Just make sure you don't make any public disclosures for the time being and get any consultants or contractors you hire signed up to appropriate NDAs.