IBA: Startup Launches as a Result of America Invents Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For most patent attorneys, the American Invents Act has created an opportunity to engage clients on a variety of legal matters. For one Indianapolis-based entrepreneur, James Burnes of Project Brilliant, it sparked an opportunity to launch a new software venture.

Among many changes, the AIA added a new method for marking in U.S. 35, Section 287(a). Virtual marking, the use of a web address in addition to “pat.” or “patent” (e.g. This new method offers significantly lower costs and efficiencies for companies to implement a marking strategy than the centuries old method of traditional marking. “The AIA’s treatment of product marking is one of the few changes made to patent law by the AIA that truly makes the business of patenting more efficient,” said John Daniluck, patent attorney and partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll.

Burnes recognized that the cost and resources necessary for a company to effectively design, build and maintain its own virtual marketing database and publishing platform would be a time consuming, expensive endeavor; perfect for a software-as-a-service business. His company, PatentStatus (, is the first virtual patent marking software solution to enable corporate counsel to quickly build and launch a virtual marking database on their website without resources from IT, marketing or web staff.

“We worked with a variety of intellectual property attorneys to determine what functionality made sense,” said Burnes. “PatentStatus enables corporate counsel to create, build and maintain a registry on their company’s website without requiring lots of resources from their company’s IT department. It’s literally as easy to use as email.” According to Burnes, the only task a client’s IT staff has takes five minutes to update the company’s domain name servers to point their unique virtual marking URL (e.g. to PatentStatus’ secure servers.

Marking = revenue

Proper patent marking provides constructive notice to infringers and maximizes potential infringement damages for patent owners. “Virtual marking allows a patent owner to use technology to greatly reduce the cost of marking and at the same time increase the certainty of marking all the right products,” said Daniluck. That can mean additional revenue in successful infringement litigation.

Virtual marking offers the fastest and most cost effective method to providing constructive notice to their competitors while also mitigating the risk of improper marking that can occur due to employee error or negligence. Prior to virtual marking, traditional marking was time consuming and expensive and prone to employee error. “PatentStatus software allows our clients to use a single marking across every product, part and article they make and then publish the related patent information on their web site to provide constructive notice,” said Burnes. “As patent claims or associated patents change in the future, our clients can simply update their database and immediately make live changes.”

Understanding utilization creates opportunity

“Companies need to understand which patents in its portfolio they are using,” said Rick Rezek, patent attorney and partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “Having a complete, up-to-date database that links products and parts with the related patents is the first step in maximizing the use of the patent portfolio.”

The challenge for most companies implementing a virtual patent marking strategy will be getting that data together. Burnes says PatentStatus makes it easy to upload data in bulk or to add information individually as those patent-to-product or patent-to-part relationships are identified. “If you have a spreadsheet or existing patent management software, you can also bulk import your data into PatentStatus in seconds,” he said. What about publishing the wrong data? While not foolproof, PatentStatus includes a variety of fail-safes as well, to avoid publishing data that is inaccurate.

Build it or outsource it?

Burnes makes his case why outsourcing to a service like PatentStatus makes more sense than building it in-house. “You need software that is secure, scalable and has all the data tracking and historical logs to stand up in court, “said Burnes. “If our clients sue an infringer, we can be a trusted, independent third-party authority to the courts providing testimony on what was in our system and when,” he said.

This last point is key—and a big consideration when thinking about building a system in house Burnes said. “We’ve worked with multiple IP firms to identify how to create the strongest-legal-standing product that can be built. Our software not only holds the data securely, but has multiple methods of tracking, storing, archiving and logging the data.”

The other consideration is ongoing maintenance costs. As case law changes or USPTO guidelines emerge, corporations will have to update their systems with each new change. Those costs can add up over time versus a consistent budgeted expense using a third party service like PatentStatus.

“Case-law compliancy is our number-one focus. We’re taking on the burden of being a compliant platform for our clients,” said Burnes. “Because this is our specialty, we’re able to deliver a solution at a fraction of the annual costs to what companies can do on their own—and we can deliver it instantly while companies who in-source it may wait weeks or months for their IT departments to prioritize the project.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?