ILNews

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. patent.companyurl.com). 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 (www.patstatus.com), 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. pat.companyurl.com) 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.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT