...depending on the technology that's being patented, it can take anywhere from two to five years for a patent to issue. As far as costs, expect to spend anywhere from $10,000 to as high as $30,000 for highly complex technologies. Patentability searches account for up to a thousand of that, application fees can add up to another couple thousand, and the rest is attorney fees for patentability opinions, initial patent drafting, and [Patent and Trademark Office] action responses and appeals.Given that about 1/3 of patent applications is granted and only 5% of patents are worth something, the "retail" price of a decent portfolio (20+ patents) runs from $600K to $1.8M. This means that for most startups, unless a comprehensive invention and patent strategy is in place, filing patent applications is a crapshoot at best.
It is also a good indicator of the existence of an underserved market.
1 comment:
You may be interested in learning that there is an emerging class of professionals who seek to address the underserved market that you highlight in your post: people who actually seek to obtain patents that are worth something. We IP Strategists do not obtain patents for start-ups and other businesses. Instead, we make sure one doesn't spend money on IP unless it will make a business money.
I know the lawyer interviewed in the WSJ article to which you link personally (and would recommend him to my clients needing patent services). But he, as well as any other patent attorney, will tell you that they cannot make a living as an attorney unless they actually expend (and bill) hours doing IP work for their clients. Thus, their goal must be to get client to have them do the work to obtain patent protection, irrespective of whether the patents support the client's business needs. In this dynamic, it must be the client's job to know whether it is a business necessity to move forward with the patent filing in the first place. As you note, if only 5 % of patents are worth anything, then most of the work patent lawyers do ends up resulting in worthless patents and clients must not possess the necessary skills to serve as patent gatekeepers for their own businesses.
In contrast to a traditional IP attorney, an IP Strategist works with a client to determine what his business goals are to ensure that any money spent on patents and other IP is in alignment. Put simply, as an IP Strategist, I get paid even if I say "no." We IP Strategists can be said to be the missing link between business advice and IP advice that has clearly contributed to the low ROI from patents for start-ups, as well as other businesses.
There are not yet many IP Strategists in the market, but our ranks are growing. I can also say that companies are beginning to recognize the exceedingly low ROI from patents and IP, and are seeking more business-focused IP counseling than typically provided by IP lawyers. I welcome communication in this regard.
Post a Comment