With President-Elect Obama's statement that he will certainly develop an "Apollo Project" to create a Green Economy, there is no doubt that "the Green Technology train has actually left the terminal." Indisputably, investors will start to invest greatly in business that show up to possess commericializable Green Technology that will get in the market as the US embraces the Green Economy and establishes the necessary infrastructure to make this happen. Prior to betting a claim to one or more of these firms, nonetheless, financiers ought to recognize whether existing patent civil liberties owned by 3rd parties could threaten the financial investment potential of even one of the most encouraging Green Technology pioneers.
Any person looking for to maximize the Green Economy and also its consequent Green Technology must acknowledge a basic truth of US license legislation: in approving a license, the Patent Office cares only that a creation is useful, novel and nonobvious. Substantially-- and this is the rub for investors in Green Technology business-- the Patent Office cares not a wit that an invention has commercial importance either today or in the future. Consequently, numerous licenses exist today for inventions that did not have industrial feasibility when the patent issued, however that cover Green Technology that today may be on the cusp of commercialization. The proprietors of such patents can (and also rather likely will) enforce their civil liberties versus those companies that efficiently introduce that same Green Technology into the market. Put simply, financiers in Green Technology trendsetters should be hyper-diligent to guarantee that developers who had the exact same idea however might not market that technology do not derail their commercial strategies.
A salient and widely known instance of an innovator drawing out a license toll from an effective innovator is discovered in the notorious NTP vs. Research in Motion (" RIM") patent lawsuits. In this case, NTP obtained patents issued in the very early 1990's to email technology for use on mobile devices. The inventor how to file a patent of the NTP-owned licenses never marketed the trademarked innovation as well as the licenses released numerous years prior to RIM introduced the technology into its BlackBerry( r) tool. After numerous years of controversial lawsuits, RIM settled with NTP for over $600 million. The substantial negotiation was bad enough, but RIM additionally struggled with loss of market share as a result of the unpredictability arising from the lawsuits, which definitely caused significant extra economic loss. No doubt financiers in RIM would certainly have suched as to find out about the NTP-owned licenses before making their financial investments in this mobile email innovator.
Lots of people reference the NTP vs. RIM situation making use of the term "patent giant litigation." Nonetheless, it would likely be wrong to identify the proprietors of licenses to not-yet-commercialized Green Technology with the pejorative "license giant." Lots of factors can be existing for such patented developments having failed to be effectively commercialized, not the least of which is that a market simply might not have actually existed at the time the license covering the modern technology released. In the United States, however, any kind of developer possessing a patent has premium civil liberties to the patented modern technology over one who successfully commercializes that very same innovation. In short, creators' United States license civil liberties defeat those of pioneers. (Note that this policy differs in some oher countries, where the patent laws need obligatory licenses from the patentee to those seeking to market the copyrighted modern technology.).
At a minimum, Green Technology financiers should strive not to focus entirely on the stability of the modern technology itself such that they stop working to identify whether an additional event has superior rights to that technology. To this end, Green Technology capitalists need to get Freedom to Operate opinions, which will educate them whether the technology of interest is covered by a third party's license rights.
A Freedom to Operate evaluation needs to just be the initial action when spending in a possibly commercializable Green Technology business. An investor needs to also perform what I call a "Permission to Innovate" analysis. A Permission to Innovate analysis informs the financier whether any 3rd party patents exist that are close to the likely development as well as commercialization course of the pertinent Green Technology. A knowledge of such nearness is crucial to understand when a technology is yet-to-be advertised due to the fact that a how to prototype an invention pioneer should have the ability to create technology freely in reaction to market forces. A Permission to Innovate evaluation will certainly provide the capitalist with expertise of whether the area of Green Technology in which she looks for to spend is crowded with 3rd party licenses that can restrict the liberty of a Green Technology firm to introduce in the future.
Investment success may pivot on understanding of such pre-existing license legal rights to make certain that a firm's commercialization of promising new modern technology is not limited by the individual that first designed and also patented that technology. I believe it is essential for Green Technology financiers to establish substantive patent knowledge of the relevant license landscape prior to signing up with the Green Technology "gold thrill.
Jackie was formerly Senior Patent Counsel at a Georgia-Pacific LLC, where she had sole responsible for Dixie( R) patent matters and also, later, the company's Chemicals organization. Jackie has additionally been a patent and also IP litigator, which offers her a special perspective in how to optimize strong IP value by staying clear of lawsuits. She is a called developer on one U.S. patent.
The innovator of the NTP-owned licenses never ever commercialized the patented innovation as well as the licenses issued numerous years before RIM presented the technology right into its BlackBerry( r) device. At a minimum, Green Technology investors have to endeavor not to concentrate solely on the stability of the innovation itself such that they fall short to establish whether an additional party possesses superior rights to that modern technology. A Permission to Innovate evaluation will supply the capitalist with knowledge of whether the location of Green Technology in which she seeks to spend is crowded with third party licenses that can restrict the liberty of a Green Technology firm to innovate in the future.
Investment success might pivot on understanding of such pre-existing license civil liberties to make certain that a company's commercialization of appealing brand-new modern technology is not limited by the person who initially created and also patented that innovation. I believe it is critical for Green Technology investors to establish substantive license understanding of the pertinent patent landscape prior to signing up with the Green Technology "gold rush.