# PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom > PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom (prepatent.org) shares "Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering" wisdom: before taking a patent or invention to market, set a realistic business strategy for the industry and seek a suitable, committed major partner, instead of building a startup only to be acquired. It is grounded in the original patent mandate, the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474, and offers articles, interactive tools and consulting services for inventors, investors, industry and governments. Key facts: - Brand: PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom (also written Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom) - Website: https://prepatent.org/ - Contact: owner@prepatent.org (online meetings arranged after first contact) - Published by an inventor and retired businessman, originally from Canada and now living in Israel, formerly the first lobbyist for a regional inventors society - Sponsoring corporation: Superior Hulls Inc. (Canada/Israel), https://superiorhulls.com/ - Topics: pre-patent strategy, partnering with major corporations, startup-to-exit vs. pre-partnering, America Invents Act, PTAB, licensing, sweat equity, IP protection, patent history - Content is educational and not legal advice ## Core pages - [Home](https://prepatent.org/): Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom overview - [About PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom](https://prepatent.org/about-us/): Meet the inventor behind Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom: a practical, partner-first approach to bringing patented inventions to market wisely. - [How Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Works](https://prepatent.org/how-it-works/): How Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering works in 7 steps: assess the idea, study the industry, prototype, protect, prepare, find a major partner, and launch. - [Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Services](https://prepatent.org/services/): Invention strategy services for inventors: consultations, readiness assessments, partner mapping, pitch preparation, agreement templates and a guidebook. - [IDEA](https://prepatent.org/idea/): Why discoveries and innovations matter, why less than 2% of patents succeed commercially, and how to develop an idea into a prototype partners value. - [Wisdom](https://prepatent.org/wisdom/): The wisdom of the original Patent Mandate (Venetian Patent Statute, 1474), how markets changed since 1983, and why wise inventors partner before going to market. - [Simply why](https://prepatent.org/simply-why/): Why good ideas are worth taking to the public, and the real concerns of inventors, investors and industry: sweat equity, costs, envy and infringement. - [StartUps](https://prepatent.org/startups/): Start-ups are the popular path for innovators — but is it wise? Compare startup-to-exit with the pre-patent pre-partnering option for founders and IP owners. - [Frequently Asked Questions](https://prepatent.org/faq/): Answers to common questions about pre-patent pre-partnering, patents and patent policy, our services and orders, privacy and confidentiality. - [Glossary of Patent & Partnering Terms](https://prepatent.org/glossary/): Plain-English glossary of patent, licensing and commercialization terms: prior art, PCT, IPR, PTAB, royalties, term sheets, sweat equity and more. - [Patent History Timeline: 1421 to Today](https://prepatent.org/patent-history-timeline/): Interactive timeline of patent and innovation history: Brunelleschi 1421, the Venetian Patent Statute 1474, US Patent Act 1790, PCT, AIA, PTAB and the UPC. - [Invention Readiness Check](https://prepatent.org/invention-readiness-check/): Free 10-question invention readiness check: score your problem fit, prototype, IP protection and partner plan, and get practical next steps. - [Patent and Innovation Resources](https://prepatent.org/resources/): Curated patent resources for inventors: USPTO, WIPO, PCT, CIPO, Israel Patent Office, EPO, free patent search tools and our own practical guides. - [Contact Us](https://prepatent.org/contact-us/): Contact Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom by email or form. Learn what to include, how we reply, and why to keep invention details private before an NDA. ## Articles - [Sweat Equity: How to Value the Inventor’s Contribution in a Partnership Deal](https://prepatent.org/sweat-equity-inventor-valuation/): How to value sweat equity in an invention deal: cost, market, income and relief-from-royalty methods, documentation, negotiation and deal structures. - [The Super Economy: How Patent Policy Shapes National Economic Growth](https://prepatent.org/super-economy-patent-policy-growth/): How patent policy shapes economic growth: innovation and GDP, small inventors, market concentration, and the Super Economy Pre-patent Registry idea. - [Why Most Patents Fail Commercially, and How Inventors Can Beat the Odds](https://prepatent.org/why-most-patents-fail-commercially/): Why most patents fail commercially: poor market fit, high costs, bad timing, no partner, costly enforcement, weak strategy, and how to beat the odds. - [From Idea to Prototype: How Inventors Turn a Concept into Something Partners Can Believe In](https://prepatent.org/from-idea-to-prototype/): From idea to prototype: proof-of-concept, works-like and looks-like models, testing and iteration, cost control, documentation, and attracting partners. - [IP Piracy and Infringement: How Small Companies Can Defend Their Innovations](https://prepatent.org/ip-piracy-infringement-small-company-defense/): How a small company can fight IP infringement and piracy: monitoring, evidence, cease-and-desist letters, litigation costs, funding, insurance and customs. - [Protecting Your Idea Before the Patent: NDAs, Trade Secrets, Provisionals and Safe Disclosure](https://prepatent.org/protecting-your-idea-before-the-patent/): How to protect your idea before the patent: enforceable NDAs, trade secrets, dated conception records, 12-month provisionals and grace-period traps abroad. - [PTAB and Independent Inventors: How the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Works and How to Defend Your Patent](https://prepatent.org/ptab-independent-inventors-defensive-strategies/): How the PTAB works for independent inventors: IPR and PGR timelines, standards and estoppel, the concerns inventor advocates raise, and practical defenses. - [Air Lubrication Under Ship Hulls: Lessons in Maritime Innovation and Partnering](https://prepatent.org/air-lubrication-ship-hulls-maritime-innovation/): How air lubrication under ship hulls cuts frictional drag, why IMO rules matter, and why maritime inventors should seek a major partner, not go it alone. - [Licensing vs. Joint Venture vs. Assignment: Choosing the Right Deal Structure for Your Invention](https://prepatent.org/licensing-vs-joint-venture-vs-assignment/): Licensing vs. joint venture vs. assignment: compare royalties, upfront fees, control and risk to pick the right deal structure for your invention. - [The America Invents Act and Independent Inventors: What Changed and What It Means for You](https://prepatent.org/america-invents-act-independent-inventors/): How the America Invents Act changed patents for independent inventors: first-inventor-to-file, grace period limits, PTAB challenges and micro entity fees. - [The Electric Car Paradox: What a 100-Year-Old Invention Teaches Today’s Inventors](https://prepatent.org/electric-car-paradox-innovation-lessons/): Electric cars were on the road 100+ years ago, then vanished. The electric car paradox holds lessons for inventors on timing, infrastructure and markets. - [Startup-to-Exit vs. Pre-Partnering: Which Path Captures More Value for Inventors?](https://prepatent.org/startup-exit-vs-pre-partnering/): Startup-to-exit vs. pre-partnering: compare cost, risk, control, dilution, timeline and value captured by inventors, and learn when each path makes sense. - [How to Find the Right Major Partner for Your Invention](https://prepatent.org/how-to-find-the-right-major-partner/): How to find the right major partner for your invention: map industry players, vet candidates, spot red flags, pitch well and protect yourself in talks. - [Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering: A Complete Step-by-Step Strategy Guide for Inventors](https://prepatent.org/pre-patent-pre-partnering-strategy-guide/): A step-by-step Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering guide: analyze your industry, set strategy, protect your idea, find a major partner, and time your filing. - [The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474: The Original Patent Mandate and Why It Still Matters to Inventors](https://prepatent.org/venetian-patent-statute-1474/): The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 created the first general patent law. Learn what it said, how it shaped modern patents, and why it matters today. - [Modern Wisdom!](https://prepatent.org/modern-wisdom/): Welcome to wisdom not as well known in our time, but wisdom which had served consumers and developers of new discoveries and innovations for centuries. - [Economy](https://prepatent.org/economy/): It is wise to take new products and services to markets without disappointments or sorrow — the economic case for pre-patent pre-partnering wisdom. ## Services and products - [Pre-Patent Strategy Consultation](https://prepatent.org/product/pre-patent-strategy-consultation/): A focused 60-minute online session to discuss your invention in general terms, your industry and your options, ending with clear, practical next steps. Price: $195 - [Invention Readiness Assessment](https://prepatent.org/product/invention-readiness-assessment/): A written report that reviews how ready your invention project is for protection, partnering and market, with prioritized recommendations. Price: $450 - [Industry & Partner Mapping Report](https://prepatent.org/product/industry-partner-mapping-report/): A structured map of your industry's major players and routes to market, with a shortlist of potential partners that may be suitable, intrigued and committed. Price: $750 - [Partner Introduction & Pitch Preparation Program](https://prepatent.org/product/partner-introduction-pitch-preparation-program/): A guided program to prepare your partner pitch, non-confidential summary and outreach plan, and to approach shortlisted major partners with confidence. Price: $1450 - [Pre-Partnering Agreement Template Kit](https://prepatent.org/product/pre-partnering-agreement-template-kit/): Educational templates for a mutual NDA, a non-binding term sheet and an evaluation agreement, with plain-English notes. Attorney review is recommended before use. Price: $79 - [The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom Guidebook](https://prepatent.org/product/pre-patent-pre-partnering-wisdom-guidebook/): A downloadable PDF eBook explaining the full Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach, from the original patent mandate to finding and approaching a major partner. Price: $29 ## Optional - [Privacy Policy](https://prepatent.org/privacy-policy/) - [Terms & Conditions](https://prepatent.org/terms-and-conditions/) - [Disclaimer](https://prepatent.org/disclaimer/) - [DMCA / Copyright Policy](https://prepatent.org/dmca-policy/) - [Cookie Policy](https://prepatent.org/cookie-policy/) - [Editorial Policy](https://prepatent.org/editorial-policy/) - [Full text for AI systems](https://prepatent.org/llms-full.txt) --- # HOME URL: https://prepatent.org/ ## Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering WISDOM Before we go to market our patent, our Business Strategy must be set best for our expectations, and realistically within the industry we are entering. Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering WISDOM is the smarter modern way based first on the long history of the way the industry had succeeded in the past to comply with the aims and objectives of the original Patent Mandate known as the  “Venetian Patent Statute” in 1474. Well before and up to the 1960-80 the USAPTO system was on the side of inventors’ created innovations, but after the evolution of the computer and software late in the 1980 and into the 1990, when the patent system had a problem of dealing with all the so many new technological developments in the electronic communications industry and was short of examiners and somewhere then the USAPTO had started surrendering to major monopolies like Microsoft, Apple, Google (Which created its own patents’ Database public system) while the original leader in business-machines since the 1920s IBM was not trying to shift the favoritism to itself, although IBM was the first major client employing the USAPTO for its thousands of patents. This modern wisdom is dealing with overcoming the distortions of the USAPTO adopting the changes serving greedy competitive monopolies which resulted starting in the early 1980s when the patent system could not deal with the overwhelming workloads and complexities of computing evolution, and where the USAPTO also itself started adopting standards created so to serve the commercial interests of these monopolies like Microsoft, Apple, Google in standards you know as DOS, PDF, DOC, RTF, Mov, gif, jpg, HTML and many more — but the worst was and still is the drive to create the new America Invent Act and the worst yet is the PTAB power over new original invention, mostly those of value which led to the startup & exit way monopolies get more commercial power without moral or taxation responsibilities. Yet the real damage is to the innovations industry itself, where it is discouraging wise inventors to register patents. In simple general description, the better wisdom now for wiser inventors is for an inventor’s company to search for the suitable intrigued Major Partner when it has a project ready to go to market and not try/strive to be attractive for Take-over by A Powerful Monopoly. But, if the small company is confident it can go to market alone and has strong reasons not be threatened by IP Piracy/Infringement, the original IP developer can enter the market alone and/or with the investor so to grow the promising new economic future alone for the company. --- # About PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom URL: https://prepatent.org/about-us/ PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom exists for one reason: to help good inventions reach the people who need them, without the inventor losing the project along the way. We believe the smartest commercialization decisions are made before a patent goes to market, when there is still time to set a realistic strategy for the industry and to choose a committed partner rather than wait to be bought out. ## Our mission Our mission is to share modern, practical wisdom about patents and partnering with inventors, investors, industry leaders and government decision-makers. We want more inventions to cross the gap between a granted patent and a real product, and we want the people who created those inventions to share fairly in the result. Commonly cited estimates suggest that only a small percentage of patents ever achieve commercial success. In our view, many of those that fail were not bad ideas. They were good ideas launched with the wrong plan: a strategy that ignored how the industry actually works, who controls the route to market, and what it truly costs to defend a patent against a well-funded competitor. We explore those causes in depth in why most patents fail commercially. Our core message: before going to market with a patent, set the business strategy realistically for your industry. Where a major player controls the market, look for a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready, instead of striving to be attractive for a takeover. ## The story behind the site This website was created by Amnon, a retired businessman and inventor. Like many inventors, he learned the hard lessons of commercialization first-hand: how much work separates an idea from a working prototype, how difficult it is to be heard by large companies, and how easily an independent inventor can be outspent. Amnon served as the first lobbyist for the regional inventors society in his Canadian province. In that volunteer role he met with leaders from government, industry and education, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Those conversations gave him an unusual view of the innovation system from several sides of the table at once: the inventor who needs a fair chance, the company that needs reliable innovation, and the public institutions that write the rules. From that experience came a series of proposals prepared for Federal and Provincial governments and for the USPTO. Among them were the "Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post" proposal, which imagined a discreet, trusted way for inventors and potential partners to find each other before full public disclosure, and the "Super Economy" concept, which looks at how patent policy can encourage real growth by helping more inventions reach the market. You can read more about these ideas in Super Economy: patent policy for growth. Amnon is a Canadian now living in Israel. This site brings together the lessons, proposals and perspectives gathered over that journey and presents them in plain English for anyone who wants to commercialize an invention wisely. The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 set out the original bargain between inventors and the public. ## What "Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom" means The name describes a sequence of decisions, each made earlier than most inventors expect: - Pre-Patent means thinking about the business before, and alongside, the patent. Who will make the product? Who will buy it? Which companies dominate the field, and how do they normally treat outside inventions? These questions shape what you should patent, where, and when. - Pre-Partnering means identifying and preparing for the right partner before the product reaches the market. The inventor's company searches for a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready for market, rather than building a startup mainly so that a dominant company will want to acquire it. - Wisdom means combining old principles with modern realities. The original purpose of patents still holds, but the market, the technology and the legal system have changed, and an inventor's plan has to reflect today's conditions. Pre-partnering is not the only path. If you are confident in your market, have the resources, and are not threatened by IP piracy or infringement, going to market alone or with an investor can make good sense. Our aim is to help you choose deliberately. For a full walkthrough, see the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy guide and our comparison of startup-to-exit versus pre-partnering. ## The original patent mandate Our thinking is grounded in the original patent mandate: the Venetian Patent Statute, passed by the Venetian Senate on 19 March 1474. It is widely regarded as the first general patent law. The statute offered a simple bargain. Anyone who built a new and ingenious device in Venice, not previously made there, could register it once it was reduced to practice so it could be used, and others would be barred from copying it for ten years without the inventor's consent. The purpose was practical and public-minded: Venice wanted inventors to bring useful devices to the city, to put them to work, and to be rewarded for doing so. Protection was tied to real, working inventions that served the community. We believe that mandate is still the best test of any patent system: does it help genuine inventors turn their work into useful products? Explore the history in The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 and on our patent history timeline. From that starting point, this site also offers a critical perspective on how modern patent systems have evolved, including changes at the USPTO since the 1980s, the America Invents Act of 2011, and the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. These are offered as analysis and opinion, to help independent inventors understand the environment they operate in. ## Our values ### Realism first We encourage strategies that fit how an industry really works, not how we wish it worked. A realistic plan protects your time, money and invention. ### Fair partnership We favor partnerships where the inventor, the investor and the industry partner each bring something real and share fairly in the outcome. ### Confidentiality We respect the fragile early stage of an invention. Confidential details should be shared only under an appropriate agreement and at the right time. ### Plain English Patents and partnering are complex. We explain them clearly so that inventors, investors and officials can make informed decisions. ### Respect for history The original patent mandate still offers guidance. We draw on centuries of innovation history to make sense of modern choices. ### Honest perspective We share opinions openly and label them as such. We do not promise outcomes, and we always recommend qualified legal advice for specific cases. ## Who we help ### Inventors Independent inventors and small inventor-led companies who want to move from idea to prototype to market, and who need a clear plan for protecting their work and finding the right partner. ### Investors Investors who want to understand the real commercial prospects of an invention, the strength of its position in the industry, and how a partner-first strategy can reduce risk. ### Industry Established companies looking for reliable outside innovation, and for fair, well-structured ways to evaluate and adopt inventions without unnecessary conflict. ### Governments Policy-makers and public institutions interested in how patent and innovation policy can help more inventions reach the market and strengthen the wider economy. Whichever group you belong to, our services and free resources, including the Invention Readiness Check and the glossary, are designed to give you a practical next step. ## Our sponsoring corporation: Superior Hulls Inc. PrePatent PrePartnering Wisdom is sponsored by Superior Hulls Inc. (Canada/Israel), a maritime innovation company. Superior Hulls is developing a new science of controlled collision between solid bodies and fluid bodies, using "injected air" under hulls to improve economy, performance, comfort, safety and speed. Superior Hulls is itself following the pre-partnering path: it is seeking a wise major maritime partner to bring its technology to market. In that sense, the sponsor lives the message of this site. Learn more at superiorhulls.com, or read our background article on air lubrication and ship hulls. ## Related websites The ideas on this site are part of a wider body of work. Two related websites explore them for specific audiences: - Wisdom for Government & Industries presents the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach for policy-makers and industry leaders. - Modern Old+New Wisdom for Investors & Inventors (Patent Trading Post) focuses on the trading-post concept for inventors and investors. ## An important note The content on this website is educational and reflects our experience and perspective. It is not legal advice. For decisions about filing, claims, agreements or enforcement, please consult a registered patent attorney or agent in your jurisdiction. See our disclaimer for details. ### Let's talk about your invention Whether you are an inventor preparing for market, an investor weighing an opportunity, or an organization looking at innovation policy, we would be glad to hear from you. Please do not send confidential invention details in your first message. Contact us --- # How Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Works URL: https://prepatent.org/how-it-works/ Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering is a way of bringing an invention to market that puts business strategy first. Instead of building a startup mainly in the hope of being acquired, the inventor's company sets a realistic plan for its industry and, when the project is ready for market, seeks a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner. Here is how the process works, step by step. ### Key points - Strategy is set before going to market, not after the patent is granted. - Confidentiality and timing of disclosure are planned from day one. - The goal is a committed major partner, not a quick exit. - Going to market alone or with an investor remains a valid option when the conditions are right. ## The process in seven steps - Clarify the problem and the idea Define the problem your invention solves, who has that problem, and why current solutions fall short. A clear problem statement is the foundation for every later decision. - Study the industry realistically Identify the companies that dominate your field, how products reach customers, and how established players usually respond to outside inventions. - Develop the idea into a prototype Turn the concept into something that works, even in rough form. A prototype proves feasibility, reveals problems early and makes your invention credible. - Protect before you disclose Keep dated records, use non-disclosure agreements, and work with a registered patent attorney or agent on a filing strategy before any public disclosure. - Set the business strategy Decide whether to go to market alone, with an investor, or with a major partner, and define what a fair partnership would look like. - Find and approach the right major partner Shortlist companies that are suitable, likely to be intrigued, and able to commit. Prepare a focused pitch and approach them in a planned sequence. - Negotiate, commit and launch Move from confidential evaluation to a term sheet and a definitive agreement, then bring the product to market together. ## Each step explained ### 1. Clarify the problem and the idea Ideas are cheap unless they are developed. The first task is to describe the problem in terms a customer or a partner would recognize. Who pays for the solution today? What does the problem cost them? An invention that solves an expensive, widely felt problem is far easier to partner than one that is merely clever. Our idea page explores this starting point. ### 2. Study the industry realistically This is the heart of the "pre-patent" thinking. Many industries are dominated by a few large companies that control manufacturing, distribution, standards or customer relationships. If that is true in your field, a go-it-alone launch may face resistance, and a patent may be expensive to enforce. Mapping the industry tells you which strategy is realistic and which companies could become partners. ### 3. Develop the idea into a prototype A prototype turns an idea into evidence. It shows partners that the invention works, helps you refine what you will claim in a patent application, and often uncovers improvements. Much of this work is sweat equity, the time and skill the inventor invests, which has real value in later negotiations. See from idea to prototype and sweat equity and inventor valuation. ### 4. Protect before you disclose Under the first-inventor-to-file system now used in the United States and most of the world, filing dates matter. Public disclosure before filing can destroy patent rights in many countries. Keep a dated record of development, share confidential details only under an NDA, and plan your filings, such as a US provisional application, which secures a filing date for 12 months, with a registered patent attorney or agent. Read protecting your idea before the patent. ### 5. Set the business strategy With a working prototype, an industry map and a protection plan, you can make the key decision. If you are confident in the market, have the resources, and are not threatened by IP piracy or infringement, going to market alone or with an investor may be right. If a major player controls the route to market, pre-partnering is often the wiser path. This is also the moment to compare deal structures: licensing, joint venture or assignment. ### 6. Find and approach the right major partner A good partner is suitable (it has the capacity to manufacture, distribute and support the product), intrigued (the invention fits its strategy and solves a problem it cares about) and committed (it is willing to invest and share fairly). Approach partners with a focused, non-confidential summary first, then move to confidential evaluation under an NDA. Our guide on how to find the right major partner goes deeper. ### 7. Negotiate, commit and launch Partnership discussions usually move from an evaluation agreement to a non-binding term sheet, then to a definitive agreement prepared with legal counsel. The aim is a clear, fair arrangement covering ownership, development responsibilities, payments or royalties, and how the patent will be defended. Then the work of bringing the product to market begins together. The goal of pre-partnering is a committed partnership, not a quick exit. ## Pre-partnering compared with startup-to-exit The common alternative is the startup-to-exit model: build a company, raise investment, and aim to be acquired, often by a dominant player. Both paths can work. The table below summarizes how they differ in our view. | | Aspect | Startup-to-exit | Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering | Main goal | Become attractive for a takeover | Bring the product to market with a committed major partner | Relationship with major players | Often seen as future acquirers, or competitors | Approached as potential partners from the start | Capital needs | Often high, raised in rounds before the exit | Often lower, because the partner supplies market infrastructure | Inventor's position | Can be diluted over successive funding rounds | Negotiated directly with the partner around the invention's value | Main risk | No buyer appears, or the invention is shelved after acquisition | No suitable partner is found, or terms are unfavorable For a fuller discussion, read startup exit versus pre-partnering and our startups page. ## Timeline expectations Every invention moves at its own pace, and we do not promise specific timelines. In general: - Early steps (clarifying the idea and studying the industry) can often be completed relatively quickly with focused effort. - Prototyping varies the most. A simple mechanical device may be ready far sooner than a complex system that needs testing or certification. - Protection follows official timelines. A US provisional application gives 12 months to file a nonprovisional application, and patent examination itself usually takes years. - Partnering takes patience. Large companies evaluate outside inventions carefully, and negotiations can take many months. Tip: You do not need a granted patent to begin partnering conversations. Many partnerships start while an application is pending, as long as disclosures are planned and protected. This page is educational and not legal advice. Please consult a registered patent attorney or agent about filing and disclosure decisions for your specific case. ### Find out where you stand Take the free Invention Readiness Check, explore our services, or send us a short, non-confidential message to discuss your project. Take the readiness check Contact us --- # Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Services URL: https://prepatent.org/services/ A patent is a right to exclude others, not a business plan. Our services help inventors and inventor-led companies turn a promising invention into a realistic commercial strategy: understanding the industry, preparing the project, and getting ready to meet a suitable, committed major partner at the right time. ### Key points - Six services, from a single online consultation to a full partner preparation program. - Two digital products you can download and use at your own pace. - Strategy and commercialization guidance, not legal advice. We recommend a registered patent attorney or agent for filing and legal questions. - Confidential details are discussed only under an appropriate non-disclosure agreement. ## Why strategy comes before the market Many inventors invest heavily in filing and prosecution, then discover that the path to market is controlled by a handful of large companies, that manufacturing requires partners they do not have, or that defending the patent would cost more than the business can afford. The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach addresses these issues early. It asks you to set your business strategy realistically for your industry and, where it makes sense, to seek a major partner when the project is ready instead of building mainly for a takeover. Our services are designed around that approach. Each one gives you a concrete output, such as a clear recommendation, a written report, a partner map or a prepared pitch, that you can act on immediately. ## Our services ### Pre-Patent Strategy Consultation A 60-minute online session to discuss your invention in general terms, your industry and your options, and to agree on practical next steps. View details ### Invention Readiness Assessment A written report that reviews your project across market, prototype, documentation, protection, strategy and partnering readiness, with prioritized recommendations. View details ### Industry & Partner Mapping Report A structured map of your industry: the major players, how they bring products to market, and which companies may be suitable, intrigued and committed partners. View details ### Partner Introduction & Pitch Preparation Program A guided program to prepare your partner pitch, materials and approach strategy, and to plan outreach to shortlisted major partners. View details ### Pre-Partnering Agreement Template Kit Educational templates for a mutual NDA, a non-binding term sheet and an evaluation agreement, with plain-English notes. Attorney review recommended. View details ### The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom Guidebook A downloadable eBook that explains the full approach, from the original patent mandate to choosing and approaching a major partner. View details ## How engagements work - First contact Send us a short, non-confidential message through the contact form or by email, or order a service directly from the shop. - Scope and fit We confirm what you need, which service fits best, and whether a non-disclosure agreement is required before any detailed discussion. - Confidentiality first Where confidential information is involved, an appropriate NDA is put in place before you share technical details. - Information gathering You share the materials we need, such as a project summary, prototype status, public patent documents and your goals. We may ask follow-up questions. - Work and delivery We carry out the agreed work and deliver the session, report or program materials within the timeframe confirmed when we accept the engagement. - Next steps Every engagement ends with clear, prioritized next steps, so you know exactly what to do after we finish. ## Who our services are for ### Independent inventors You have an idea, a prototype or a patent application and want a realistic plan to reach the market without losing control of your project. ### Inventor-led small companies Your company owns the invention and needs to decide whether to go to market alone, with an investor, or with a major partner. ### Investors You are considering an invention-based opportunity and want a structured view of readiness, industry dynamics and partnering prospects. ### Organizations and institutions You support inventors or innovation programs and want a practical framework for pre-partnering and commercialization. Not sure where to start? Take the free Invention Readiness Check. Your score suggests which service, if any, is the most useful next step. ## What our services are not We are not a law firm, and our services are not legal advice. We do not draft or file patent applications, give formal patentability or freedom-to-operate opinions, or represent clients in legal proceedings. For those tasks, please work with a registered patent attorney or agent. Our role is strategic: helping you understand your industry, prepare your project and approach partners wisely. We also make no promises about patent grants, partnerships, investment or commercial results, because those depend on many factors outside anyone's control. ## Confidentiality Early-stage inventions are fragile. Public disclosure before filing can affect patent rights in many countries, and an idea shared carelessly can be hard to protect. For that reason: - Please do not send confidential details in your first message or order notes. - Where detailed discussion is needed, we agree on a non-disclosure agreement first. - We use the information you share only to deliver the service you requested. - You decide what is shared with any potential partner, and when. To learn more about early-stage protection, read protecting your idea before the patent and our guide to licensing, joint ventures and assignment. See also our privacy policy. ## Choosing the right service | | If you… | Consider | Want a quick, expert conversation about your options | Pre-Patent Strategy Consultation | Need an objective review of how ready your project is | Invention Readiness Assessment | Need to know who the right partners might be | Industry & Partner Mapping Report | Are ready to approach major partners | Partner Introduction & Pitch Preparation Program | Need starting-point agreements to discuss with your attorney | Pre-Partnering Agreement Template Kit | Prefer to learn the approach at your own pace | The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering Wisdom Guidebook ### Ready for the next step? Browse all services and digital products in the shop, or send us a short, non-confidential message and we will help you choose. Visit the shop Contact us --- # IDEA URL: https://prepatent.org/idea/ ## Discoveries and Innovations are important for everyone, as they lead to economic growth and better life for all. ### Therefor, your ideas matter and your investment is important Good ideas, like discoveries, new concepts, improved products and services, lead to positive innovations which should improve the quality and safety plus comforts and joys of life for all people. This is and has been a very welcomed and respected part of our blessed human evolution and responsibilities through all our history. History shows that there are many millions of ideas, and that only few millions are registered as patents, but only real few reach the market with success, we are talking about less than 2% which will have commercial success, and you can read more about my study of the problem at the website related to the “Super Economy”. There is a saying that “Ideas are Cheep” and it is true as to cases where nothing is being done about them, but if an idea is developed and tested and passes all resistances people and facts puts in the way, it can be materialized into its Prototype version and developed into its useful version developed for consumption. If the idea is good and there are people saying it is good, it is worth developing and adding to its value, so it is not useless just as an idea. ## Turning an idea into something partners value ### 1. Define the problem Describe who has the problem, how much it costs them today and why existing solutions fall short. ### 2. Protect before you share Keep dated records, use NDAs and consider a provisional filing before any public disclosure. Learn how. ### 3. Build a prototype A working proof turns a "cheap idea" into a credible project. From idea to prototype. ### How ready is your idea for a major partner? Answer 10 quick questions and get a readiness score with practical next steps. Take the readiness check Further reading: Why most patents fail commercially — and how to beat the odds and the step-by-step Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering guide. --- # Wisdom URL: https://prepatent.org/wisdom/ In the not to far past, taking to market new inventions was safer and the monopolies were not as much in control of global markets, so more Inventors were able to contact and get attention by major corporations supporting new innovations, products and services and resulting in healthy economic growth in harmony with the original patent concept and mandate, you can see here, in a copy of the original Patent Mandate known as the “Venetian Patent Statute” in 1474. The original Patent Mandate: the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 But in our time, 1983 – 2024 this original mandate has lost place in the economic development realm and is mostly of value in the sizzling industries of electronic communications and health, while its worth is still of value in all other industries as before, but the terms of bringing to market new products and services had changed to the easy way for monopolies to grow and direct the markets and not the quality and wider spectrum of ingenuity plus diversity of the discoveries and innovations — so the quality or brilliance of innovation is not the factor that the consumer gets, leading to cheaper less reliable low quality and continuous upgrade and replacement factors which puts more profit in the sales volumes of larger stronger corporations. This is not good for Governments or consumers. This is not good or wise as well and leads to a narrower market which pushes consumers in wrong ways. One good example, is the Electric Car. The invention of the electric car is older then 100 years, and its newer version is already showing its limitations which a wise consumer can see for her/himself. The same is for Injected Air under the hulls of ships, which has been invented and is not coming up as new, with the limitations that a real new invention does not have while it is more advanced and beneficial for the shipping industry — and the reason you do not see it, is that the inventor is WISE and has not entered the hostile markets created under the Global Patent system for creative inventors, and the ways Monopolies had become greedy and lazy plus disrespectful for real advanced superior inventions. Intellectual prostitution is harmful for wise inventors, as it is for any good mother of invention searching for a good father for the brainchild. Because the wisdom of pre-patent—pre-partnering is not known to the public, the public can not yet pressure the political leaders to have Governments respect the wisdom of the original merchants of Venice Italy regarding the establishment of a patent system so the fathers of invention and we all know who is the mother of the invention. I have created this website so to let the public have a look at the problem of real disservice to the growth of the economy which can develop in many more directions as the public/consumer chooses and not be narrowed into the hands of greedy monopolies escaping taxation. The system we know as FREE ENTERPRISE is not letting/enabling many small merchants enter the markets which are in the hands of STRONG ENTERPRISE. I have not activated discussions forums in this website, which are found at the other websites, so I am adding a contact form for individual contacts with valued input or questions. ## Explore the wisdom in depth ### The 1474 mandate What the Venetian Senate actually enacted and why its purpose still matters. Read the article. ### The electric car paradox A 100-year lesson in timing, infrastructure and market power. Read the article. ### Air under ship hulls Maritime innovation and why the wise inventor waits for the right partner. Read the article. See also the interactive patent history timeline from 1421 to today. ## Share your input or question --- # Simply why URL: https://prepatent.org/simply-why/ ## YOUR IDEA MATTERS All good ideas matter, as they may add to better safer life for all who need or can use them. New ideas are resulted from someone searching for a product or service or solution to a problem or preference in life. The key reasons why its is worth taking good ideas and solutions to the public is the original reason why the idea was to solve a problem that can help many more people, and/or be a major part in the positive beneficial evolution of better quality and safety for life. In this page, we also share some concerns of Investors and Inventors plus Industry: The costs and time plus efforts in taking an idea to the market, original developments’ “Sweat Equity” plus added ongoing investment over the longer time, authoritative regulations’ risks and market introduction plus penetration time. The envy of others about your accomplishments, after your company started its success. …or something like this: The strong competitive intent by others to bypass your full rights to your invention and investment, your developed market share and future growth opportunity. We shall add as I keep creating this website! ## Answers to these concerns - Costs, time and sweat equity — how to document and value the inventor's contribution: Sweat equity explained. - Envy and competitive pressure — why a committed major partner is often the best shield: How to find the right major partner. - Bypassing your rights — practical defenses for small companies: IP piracy and infringement. ### Talk it through A one-hour strategy consultation can help you weigh costs, risks and partnering options for your project. See services --- # StartUps URL: https://prepatent.org/startups/ ## Past and Future Start-up companies are the most popular hopeful way innovators chose, but is it wise? Well, although I have not chosen the option of StartUp to Exit option and did not see the terms of getting rich by a “takeover” process, but I see it is very profitable for the growth of the monopoly who took over smaller companies with new concepts mostly in the software and hardware electronic industries, as well as the medical industry. The monopolies are more able to make the real big profits from the product or service that the original developers sold for significantly less. This is not a bad choice, if preferred by the original owners, and is in fact similar to the pre-patent partnering option itself, it is just that the pre-patent partnering option is not as costly or risky to the original founders of the original owners of the IP for the Patent, and is a better deal for the monopoly or the wise collaborating partner which is intrigued, interested, is committed and suitable for the project. ## At a glance | | | Startup-to-exit | Pre-patent pre-partnering | Main goal | Grow to be acquired | Bring a market-ready project to a committed major partner | Cost and risk for founders | High (funding rounds, dilution) | Lower (shared with the partner) | Value captured by original IP owners | Often sold for significantly less than its later value | Negotiated share of the long-term value | Fit | Software, hardware, medical | Any industry where a major player controls the route to market Read the full comparison: Startup-to-exit vs. pre-partnering, and licensing vs. joint venture vs. assignment. --- # Sweat Equity: How to Value the Inventor’s Contribution in a Partnership Deal URL: https://prepatent.org/sweat-equity-inventor-valuation/ Published: 2026-07-21 By the time an inventor sits across the table from a serious partner, the invention has usually absorbed years of evenings, weekends and savings. Prototypes have been built and rebuilt. Patent applications have been drafted and paid for. Tests have failed and been repeated. None of this shows up on a balance sheet, yet it is often the single most important contribution to the venture. That contribution is called sweat equity, and how it is valued can determine whether a partnership feels fair for years to come or breeds resentment from day one. This guide explains the main valuation methods, what you should document, how to negotiate, and the deal structures most commonly used to reward the inventor. ### Key points - Sweat equity includes unpaid time, expertise, risk, development work, intellectual property and know-how. - Four common approaches to valuing it are the cost approach, market approach, income approach and relief-from-royalty method. - Using several methods produces a defensible range rather than a single number to argue over. - Documentation is what turns your claimed value into a credible value. - Deal structures such as equity, royalties and milestone payments can be combined to balance risk and reward. ## What counts as sweat equity? In a typical inventor-partner deal, the inventor contributes a bundle of assets that is broader than the patent alone: - Intellectual property: patents and pending applications, designs, copyrights in software or drawings. - Know-how and trade secrets: the practical knowledge of how to make the invention work, including failures that tell a partner what not to do. - Development work: prototypes, test data, simulations and engineering drawings. - Time and expertise: often years of unpaid or underpaid effort. - Risk already taken: money spent when nobody knew if the invention would work. - Future contribution: continued technical leadership, improvements and support during commercialization. A partner typically contributes capital, manufacturing capacity, distribution, brand, regulatory experience and legal resources. A fair deal recognizes that both sides bring something the other cannot easily replace. That is the foundation of the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach: a partnership between parties who need each other, not a takeover of a weaker party by a stronger one. ## Four methods for valuing the inventor's contribution ### 1. The cost approach The cost approach asks: what has it cost to create this, or what would it cost to recreate it? It comes in two forms: - Historical cost: the actual money spent plus a reasonable value for the inventor's time, often based on what a qualified engineer or consultant would have been paid. - Replacement cost: what it would cost the partner, today, to develop an equivalent solution independently, including time, staff, the risk of failure and the need to design around your patents. Strengths: easy to document and understand. Weaknesses: cost has no necessary link to value. A brilliant invention might cost little to create; a poor one might cost a fortune. The cost approach is best used as a floor, a minimum below which the deal makes little sense for the inventor. Replacement cost, including the time a partner would lose, is often the more persuasive version in negotiations. ### 2. The market approach The market approach looks at what comparable technologies, licenses or companies have sold for. Sources may include published licensing agreements in public company filings, industry royalty databases, court decisions that discuss reasonable royalties, and the experience of advisors in your field. Strengths: grounded in real transactions. Weaknesses: truly comparable deals are rare, details are often confidential, and early-stage inventions differ greatly from mature licensed products. Adjust comparables carefully for stage of development, exclusivity, territory and market size. ### 3. The income approach The income approach estimates the future economic benefit the invention will generate and discounts it to present value. The basic steps are: - Forecast sales or cost savings attributable to the invention over its useful life, which may be limited by patent term (generally 20 years from filing) or by expected technological change. - Estimate the profit or benefit that is attributable specifically to the invention, rather than to the partner's brand, distribution or other technology. - Apply a discount rate that reflects both the time value of money and the risk of the project. Early-stage inventions carry high risk and so warrant high discount rates. - Consider probability weighting: the chance that development, regulatory approval or market adoption fails. Strengths: focuses on what actually matters, future value. Weaknesses: highly sensitive to assumptions. A small change in projected sales or discount rate can swing the result dramatically, which is why both sides should agree on the assumptions, not just the result. ### 4. Relief from royalty The relief-from-royalty method is a specialized form of the income approach widely used in IP valuation. It asks: if the partner did not own or have rights to this invention, what royalty would it have to pay to license it? The value of the IP is the present value of those royalties the partner is "relieved" from paying. The steps are: forecast revenue from products using the invention; select an appropriate royalty rate, informed by comparable licenses and the invention's contribution; apply it to the forecast; deduct taxes where appropriate; and discount to present value. A note of caution on rules of thumb. The so-called "25 percent rule," which suggests a licensor should receive about a quarter of the licensee's expected profit, has been widely used in negotiations. In Uniloc v. Microsoft (2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected it as a basis for calculating patent damages. In a negotiation it may still serve as a rough sanity check, but it should never replace analysis of the actual economics. The Georgia-Pacific factors, a list used by U.S. courts to determine a reasonable royalty, are another useful framework for thinking through what a fair rate might be. | | Method | Core question | Best used for | Main limitation | Cost approach | What did it, or would it, cost to create? | Setting a minimum; showing a partner what it would cost to replicate | Cost does not equal value | Market approach | What have similar deals paid? | Benchmarking royalty rates and equity splits | Few truly comparable, public transactions | Income approach | What future benefit will it generate? | Estimating full value of a promising invention | Very sensitive to forecasts and discount rate | Relief from royalty | What would the partner pay to license it? | Translating value into a royalty or lump sum | Depends on choosing an appropriate rate Aim for a range, not a number. Run at least two or three methods. If the cost approach gives a floor, the market approach a benchmark, and relief-from-royalty a forward-looking estimate, the overlap between them is your most defensible negotiating zone. A well-documented valuation makes deal terms easier to agree and easier to honor ## What to document A partner's finance team will discount any figure you cannot support. Start building your evidence file early, ideally from the first day of the project: - Time logs: dates, hours and tasks, kept consistently. - Expenses: receipts and invoices for materials, prototypes, testing, travel, professional fees and patent costs. - Development records: dated notebooks, CAD files, photos and video of prototypes and tests, as described in our guide from idea to prototype. - Test data: raw data, test conditions and comparison with existing solutions. - IP records: filings, office actions, granted claims and prior-art searches. - Market evidence: letters of interest, customer feedback, industry analysis and any expressions of interest from potential partners. - Know-how inventory: a confidential list of practical knowledge, suppliers and techniques not disclosed in the patent. Our article on protecting your idea before the patent explains how to keep these records in a way that also supports your IP rights. ## Negotiation tactics for inventors - Know your walk-away point. Decide in advance the minimum terms you would accept, and what you would do instead if the deal fails. A credible alternative, such as another partner or going to market with an investor, is your strongest source of leverage. - Share your methodology, not just your number. Showing how you reached a value invites the partner to discuss assumptions rather than dismiss a figure. - Separate the past from the future. Value what you have already contributed separately from what you will contribute going forward. Past contribution can be rewarded with upfront payments or founder equity; future contribution with salary, consulting fees or vesting equity. - Trade, don't concede. If a partner wants a lower royalty, ask for something in return: higher minimum payments, a larger upfront fee, a shorter exclusivity period, or stronger performance obligations. - Protect against shelving. A partner might license your invention and then not use it. Require diligence obligations, minimum annual royalties, and rights to terminate or convert to non-exclusive if milestones are missed. - Keep the relationship in mind. A partnership may last many years. A deal that feels one-sided to either party is fragile. Aim for terms that motivate both of you to succeed. - Use professionals. A registered patent attorney or agent, a licensing professional, and an accountant or tax advisor are worth their fees in a deal of any size. ## Typical deal structures Most inventor-partner deals combine several of the following elements. The right mix depends on the stage of the invention, the partner's business model, your appetite for risk, and whether you will remain actively involved. | | Structure | How it works | Advantages for the inventor | Risks and watch-points | Founder or partner equity | Inventor receives shares in a new joint company or in the partner's venture | Participates in long-term growth; aligns interests | Dilution in later funding; may be illiquid for years; minority-shareholder protections matter | Running royalties | Percentage of net sales or a fixed amount per unit sold | Return grows with sales; no need to run the business | Depends on partner's sales effort; define "net sales" carefully; audit rights essential | Upfront or signing fee | Lump sum paid at signing | Immediate return for past work; reduces risk | Usually traded against lower ongoing royalties | Milestone payments | Payments triggered by events such as successful field trials, regulatory approval or first commercial sale | Rewards progress; partner pays more as risk falls | Milestones must be objective and within partner's control to deliver | Minimum annual royalties | Guaranteed yearly payment regardless of sales | Protects against shelving; provides steady income | Partners may resist high minimums early on | Consulting or employment | Inventor paid for ongoing technical work | Rewards future contribution separately | Ensure IP created under the agreement is addressed clearly | Reversion rights | Rights return to inventor if partner fails to commercialize or breaches | Prevents the invention from being locked away | Must be drafted precisely to be enforceable Equity arrangements often include vesting schedules, so that shares are earned over time. This protects both sides if someone leaves early. Inventors should also ask about anti-dilution protections, board representation or information rights, and what happens to their shares if the company is sold. Tax treatment of equity and royalties varies by country and can be significant, so consult a tax advisor before signing. For a broader comparison of deal types, see our article on licensing versus joint venture versus assignment. ## Common mistakes to avoid - Valuing the invention based on hope rather than evidence. - Accepting equity alone in a venture with no clear path to liquidity. - Granting worldwide exclusivity without performance obligations. - Failing to define improvements: who owns them, and do they fall under the license? - Forgetting to value know-how, which may be what the partner truly needs. - Negotiating without professional advice because "the deal is small." ## Final thoughts Sweat equity is real value, but it only becomes negotiable value when it is documented, explained and connected to the partner's own interests. Inventors who prepare carefully, use more than one valuation method and understand the available deal structures can negotiate from confidence rather than hope. This article is educational and is not legal, tax or financial advice; consult qualified professionals before entering into any agreement. Preparing for partnership talks and unsure how to value what you have built? Contact us by email to discuss your invention and how to present your contribution to a potential partner. ## FAQ Q: What is sweat equity for an inventor? A: Sweat equity is the value an inventor contributes through unpaid time, expertise, risk-taking and development work rather than cash. In a partnership deal it is usually recognized through equity, royalties, milestone payments or a combination. Q: Which valuation method is best for an early-stage invention? A: No single method is best. The cost approach sets a floor, the market approach shows what similar deals paid, and income-based methods such as relief from royalty estimate future value. Using several and comparing results gives a more defensible range. Q: Is the 25 percent rule a reliable way to set a royalty? A: It is a rough rule of thumb that suggests a licensor receive about a quarter of the expected profit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected it as a basis for patent damages in Uniloc v. Microsoft (2011), so it should be used, if at all, only as a sanity check in negotiation. Q: Should I take equity or royalties? A: Equity offers upside if the company grows but can be diluted and may never become liquid. Royalties tie your return directly to sales but depend on the partner's commitment to sell. Many inventors negotiate a mix, plus milestone payments and performance obligations. Q: What records help support a sweat equity valuation? A: Time logs, invoices and receipts, development records, test data, patent filings, evidence of market interest, and any comparable licensing information you can lawfully obtain. Well-organized documentation makes your figures credible to a partner. --- # The Super Economy: How Patent Policy Shapes National Economic Growth URL: https://prepatent.org/super-economy-patent-policy-growth/ Published: 2026-07-15 Why do some nations grow richer decade after decade while others stall? Economists offer many answers, but nearly all of them return to one engine: new ideas turned into useful products and processes. Patent policy sits at the heart of that engine. It decides who is rewarded for inventing, how knowledge is shared, how easily small inventors can reach the market, and how much power accumulates in a few large companies. On this site we use the term Super Economy for an economy that gets these choices right. This article explains the concept, the economics behind it, and the policy proposal that grew out of it. ### Key points - Technological progress is a major source of long-run growth in living standards, a finding central to modern growth economics. - Patent systems exist to encourage invention and disclosure, a bargain dating back to the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474. - Small and independent inventors are an important, often underused, source of new ideas. - From our perspective, concentration of market power can narrow the paths by which outside inventions reach customers. - The site owner has proposed a "Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post" to operate alongside national patent offices. - Governments can strengthen growth by making patent systems more accessible, predictable and connected to industry. ## Innovation and growth: what economics tells us For most of human history, living standards barely changed from one generation to the next. The sustained rise in prosperity since the Industrial Revolution coincided with an unprecedented stream of inventions: steam power, electricity, the telephone, the automobile, the computer. Economists have tried to measure how much of that growth comes from technology. In the 1950s, Robert Solow's growth model showed that adding more workers and more machines could not by itself explain the long-run rise in output per person; a large residual was attributed to technological progress. Later, Paul Romer's endogenous growth theory placed ideas inside the model, arguing that knowledge differs from ordinary goods because it can be used by many people at once and builds on itself. Romer shared the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for this work. The economist Joseph Schumpeter, writing in 1942, described the process as "creative destruction," in which new innovations displace old products and firms. The policy message is consistent: an economy that produces, protects and deploys more good ideas tends to grow faster. Patent policy is one of the main levers a government controls in that process. ## The original patent bargain The modern patent idea is often traced to the Venetian Patent Statute, passed by the Venetian Senate on 19 March 1474. Venice offered inventors of new and ingenious devices a ten-year exclusive right, provided the device was reduced to practice, and it did so explicitly to attract talent and encourage useful industry. England's Statute of Monopolies of 1624 curbed royal monopolies while preserving patents for new inventions. The United States wrote the principle into its Constitution, empowering Congress "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and passed its first Patent Act in 1790. The bargain has remained remarkably stable: the state grants a temporary, limited right to exclude others, today generally 20 years from filing, and in return the inventor discloses the invention so that others can learn from it and build on it once the term ends. The bargain serves the economy when it rewards genuine inventors, spreads knowledge and gets inventions into use. It fails the economy when rights become too expensive to obtain, too uncertain to rely on, or too easily captured by those with the most resources. Our patent history timeline traces how the system has evolved. ## The role of small and independent inventors Many celebrated inventions came from individuals or small teams working outside large organizations. Independent inventors bring a different perspective: they are not bound by a company's existing product lines, and they often attack problems that large firms have overlooked or deliberately avoided because a new solution would compete with their established business. Yet independent inventors face steep disadvantages. They must pay for patent drafting, filing, prosecution and maintenance, often in several countries. They must build prototypes, find manufacturers, and enter markets where established competitors control distribution. Commonly cited estimates suggest only a small percentage of patents ever achieve commercial success; this site has long cited a figure of less than about 2 percent. Our article on why most patents fail commercially explores the reasons. Each invention that never reaches the market is a lost contribution to national output, employment and tax revenue. Small teams and independent inventors are an important source of new ideas. ## Concentration and monopoly: a perspective A patent is a narrow right covering a specific invention. Market dominance is something different: a position in which a few firms control much of an industry's customers, platforms or supply chains. The two can interact in ways that matter for growth. From this site's perspective, the decades since the 1980s have seen several large technology companies, such as Microsoft, Apple and Google, achieve exceptional scale and influence. These firms have produced important innovations and have also acquired many smaller companies. Our concern is a structural one: when the main route to market for an outside invention is to be acquired by a dominant incumbent, the incumbent effectively decides which ideas are developed, which are absorbed, and which are shelved. That can narrow the diversity of innovation an economy depends on. We also take the view that changes to the U.S. system, including the America Invents Act of 2011 and the post-grant challenge procedures of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that began in 2012, have shifted the balance of cost and risk in ways that independent inventors must take seriously. Reasonable people disagree about these questions, and competition policy, through laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, exists precisely to weigh them. The point for policymakers is that patent policy and competition policy should be designed together, so that patents remain a path for outsiders to challenge incumbents rather than a tool that only incumbents can afford to use. The Super Economy idea, in one line: national prosperity grows fastest when the inventive capacity of all citizens, not only that of the largest companies, is protected, developed and efficiently connected with the partners who can bring it to market. ## The site owner's proposal: a Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post The Super Economy concept is not only an analysis; it led to a concrete proposal. As a volunteer lobbyist for the regional inventors society in his Canadian province, the site's owner, Amnon, met leaders in government, industry and education, including the USPTO. He prepared proposals to the Federal and Provincial governments in Canada and to the USPTO for what he calls a "Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post" to operate alongside national patent offices. In broad terms, the proposal addresses a gap in today's systems. Patent offices examine and grant rights, but they do not help inventors find the industrial partners who can turn those rights into products. Inventors are left to search alone, often after spending heavily on filings and before they understand the realities of their industry. The proposal envisions: - A Pre-patent Registry: a way for inventors to register inventions at an early stage, establishing a record of their work and readiness before they commit to the full cost and risk of going to market. - A silent Trading-Post: a discreet channel through which suitable partners and investors can learn of registered inventions and approach the inventors, without public exposure that might invite copying. - Alignment with the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach: encouraging inventors to find a committed major partner when the project is ready, rather than building a startup simply to be acquired. The details of how such a mechanism would operate, including confidentiality rules, eligibility, governance and its relationship to existing patent law, are matters for policymakers and legal experts to work out. We present it here as the owner's proposal and as an invitation to discussion. More background is available on our related site, Wisdom for Government & Industries. ### Two paths for the same invention The difference the proposal aims to make is easiest to see by comparing the typical path an independent inventor follows today with the path the Super Economy concept envisions. The comparison below is illustrative, not a description of any existing program. | | Stage | Typical path today | Super Economy path (as proposed) | Early invention | Inventor works alone, unsure whom to trust | Invention recorded in a pre-patent registry | Finding interest | Cold approaches to companies; risk of exposure | Discreet introductions through a silent trading post | Patent spending | Heavy filings before market interest is known | Filing strategy informed by a committed partner's needs | Going to market | Alone, with an investor, or groomed for takeover | With a suitable, committed major partner | Economic result | Many inventions stall unused | More inventions reach productive use ### Precedents for policy that connects invention to use Governments have intervened before to move inventions from paper into practice. In the United States, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed universities, nonprofits and small businesses to retain title to inventions made with federal research funding, on the theory that ownership would motivate them to license and commercialize those inventions. Universities responded by building technology transfer offices that actively seek industry partners. Many countries also support innovation through research grants, small business programs and public-private partnerships, and organizations such as WIPO publish comparative measures of national innovation performance each year. Independent inventors, however, generally fall outside these institutional channels. A registry and trading post designed for them would extend the same logic of connecting inventions with the partners who can use them. ## Recommendations for governments Drawing on the Super Economy perspective, here are policy directions we believe deserve serious consideration. They are offered as recommendations for discussion, not as claims about any government's current plans. - Keep the original mandate in view. Measure the patent system not only by applications processed but by inventions brought into productive use. - Lower barriers for small entities. Maintain and expand reduced fees, free guidance and pro bono programs for independent inventors and small businesses. - Make outcomes predictable. Clear examination standards and stable rules reduce the uncertainty that discourages investors from backing small inventors. - Balance post-grant challenges. Ensure that procedures for reviewing patents are fair to owners with limited resources, not only to challengers with large legal budgets. - Support the path from idea to prototype. Grants, shared workshops and testing facilities help inventions reach the stage where partners take them seriously. - Build bridges to industry. Pilot mechanisms, such as a pre-patent registry or a confidential partnering platform, that connect inventors with committed industrial partners. - Coordinate patent and competition policy. Review whether acquisition patterns and market concentration are narrowing the routes by which outside inventions reach customers. - Measure and publish results. Track commercialization outcomes for small-entity patents so policy can be improved over time. ## What this means for inventors and investors today Policy changes slowly. While governments deliberate, inventors and investors can apply the Super Economy logic at the level of a single project: protect the invention properly, develop it to a credible prototype, assess the industry realistically, and seek a suitable major partner rather than entering a hostile market alone. Our Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy guide shows how. This article presents analysis and opinion for educational purposes. It is not legal or investment advice; consult qualified professionals for decisions about specific inventions or investments. Are you a policymaker, industry leader or inventor interested in the Super Economy and the Pre-patent Registry proposal? We welcome the conversation. Contact us by email to get in touch. ## FAQ Q: How does innovation affect economic growth? A: Economists have long found that a large part of long-run growth in output per person comes from technological progress rather than from adding more labor and capital. Robert Solow's growth work in the 1950s and Paul Romer's endogenous growth theory, recognized with the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics, both highlight the central role of ideas and innovation. Q: What is the Super Economy? A: The Super Economy is a concept developed by this site's owner in proposals to governments. In our framing, it describes an economy that fully mobilizes the inventive capacity of its citizens, including small independent inventors, by connecting their inventions efficiently with committed industrial partners. Q: What is the Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post? A: It is a proposal by this site's owner, prepared for Canadian federal and provincial governments and the USPTO, for a mechanism alongside national patent offices. The idea is to give inventors a way to register inventions at an early stage and to meet suitable partners and investors discreetly, before the costly and risky step of going to market alone. Q: Are patents a form of monopoly? A: A patent grants a temporary, limited right to exclude others from practicing a specific invention, generally for 20 years from filing, in exchange for public disclosure. It is a deliberate policy bargain, distinct from market dominance across a whole industry, though the two can interact. Q: What can governments do to help independent inventors? A: Options include affordable fees and guidance for small entities, faster and more predictable examination, fair procedures for challenging patents, support for prototyping, and mechanisms that connect inventors with industrial partners and investors. --- # Why Most Patents Fail Commercially, and How Inventors Can Beat the Odds URL: https://prepatent.org/why-most-patents-fail-commercially/ Published: 2026-05-05 Inventors often treat a granted patent as proof that an idea is valuable. It is not. A patent proves that an invention is new, useful and not obvious, at least in the opinion of an examiner. It says nothing about whether anyone will pay for it. Commonly cited estimates, including the figure of less than 2 percent that this site has long used, suggest that only a small minority of patents ever achieve meaningful commercial success. The exact number is debated, and definitions vary, but the direction is not in dispute: most patents cost their owners more than they earn. Understanding why is the first step to joining the minority that succeed. ### Key points - A patent is a legal right to exclude others, not a business. Commercial value comes from what you do with it. - Common causes of failure include lack of market fit, underestimated costs, poor timing, no committed partner, the cost of enforcement, and the absence of a coherent strategy. - Many failures can be predicted, and often prevented, before the first application is filed. - Developing the invention and securing an aligned industry partner are among the strongest ways to improve the odds. ## A note on the numbers Why is there no precise figure? Because "commercial success" is hard to measure. A patent may be embedded in a product alongside dozens of others, licensed privately, used defensively, or sold as part of a company acquisition. Public data shows how many patents are granted, and how many are allowed to lapse when maintenance fees come due, but not how much money each one earned. Estimates therefore rely on surveys, licensing data and informed judgment. We use the "less than 2 percent" figure as a commonly cited estimate rather than a precise statistic, and the lessons of this article hold whether the true figure is somewhat higher or lower. One indicator is visible to anyone: in the United States, utility patents must be maintained by paying fees at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after grant. Many owners choose not to pay, letting their patents expire early. When an owner stops paying, it usually means the patent is not producing enough value to justify the fee. ## The six most common reasons patents fail commercially ### 1. No real market fit Many patented inventions solve problems that are not painful enough for customers to pay to fix, or solve them in ways that do not fit how customers actually work. Inventors, understandably excited about the technical elegance of their solution, sometimes skip the hard questions: Who exactly is the customer? What do they use today? What would it cost them to switch? Who in their organization decides? An invention that is better on paper but requires customers to change their equipment, training or supply chain may struggle, however clever it is. ### 2. Underestimated costs Obtaining a patent is only the beginning of the expense. Inventors often underestimate: - Prosecution costs, including responses to office actions and possible appeals. - Foreign filing, translation and national-phase fees, which can multiply total costs quickly. - Maintenance fees in each country over the life of the patent. - Development, prototyping, testing and certification. - Manufacturing tooling, inventory, marketing and distribution. When money runs out before revenue begins, the patent becomes an expense with no return. Our article on moving from idea to prototype covers how to stretch development budgets. ### 3. Poor timing An invention can be right but early, or right but late. If the supporting technology, infrastructure or regulation is not ready, a market may not exist yet. The electric car is a classic example: practical electric vehicles were built more than a hundred years ago, but batteries, charging infrastructure and public priorities took generations to catch up. Patents from that era expired long before the market matured. Our article on the electric car paradox explores this lesson. Because a patent lasts generally 20 years from filing, filing too early can mean much of its term is spent before the market is ready. ### 4. No committed partner Most independent inventors lack the manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, brand and capital to bring a product to market at scale. Without a partner that has those assets, even a strong invention can stall. Inventors often discover too late that large companies do not accept unsolicited ideas, or are not interested in early-stage technology without proof. Approaching partners randomly, without preparation, rarely works. Our guide on how to find the right major partner sets out a more systematic approach. ### 5. The cost and difficulty of enforcement A patent's value depends on the owner's ability to stop infringement or collect fair compensation. For individuals and small companies, enforcement can be prohibitively expensive. Patent litigation can take years, and an accused infringer may also challenge the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the view of many inventor advocates, these realities lead some infringers to calculate that ignoring a small inventor's patent carries little risk. Preparing for that possibility, through stronger claims, pending continuations, a realistic legal budget and allies who share the risk, is part of any serious commercialization plan. ### 6. No coherent strategy Perhaps the most common cause underlies all the others: the patent was pursued without a clear plan for how it would make money. Will the inventor manufacture, license, assign, or partner? In which industry and countries? On what timeline? With what budget? A patent obtained without answers to these questions is a solution in search of a business model. Some inventors also adopt a "startup-to-exit" model by default, hoping to be acquired, without considering whether that path fits their technology or industry. That default deserves a hard look, because an acquirer may value the patent mainly as a way to remove a competitor rather than to bring the invention to market. | | Cause of failure | Early warning sign | Practical countermeasure | No market fit | You cannot name specific customers or the price they would pay | Interview potential customers and industry experts before heavy spending | Underestimated costs | No written budget beyond the first filing | Build a multi-year budget covering filing, foreign rights, development and maintenance | Poor timing | Your product depends on infrastructure or regulation that does not yet exist | Track enabling trends; consider staged filings and trade secrets for later improvements | No committed partner | No industry player has evaluated the invention | Prepare a partner shortlist and a staged, protected disclosure plan | Enforcement burden | No funds or allies for a legal challenge | Strengthen claims, keep continuations pending, align with a partner that shares the risk | No strategy | You cannot explain how the patent will generate revenue | Choose a commercialization route and set milestones before filing broadly Commercial success usually depends on decisions made in the boardroom, not only in the patent office ## How to beat the odds ### Start with the market, not the patent Before investing heavily, test whether a market exists. Talk to potential customers and industry insiders. Study how current solutions are bought, priced and installed. Estimate the total cost of switching for a customer and the economic benefit your invention delivers. If the benefit is not clear and substantial, refine the invention or reconsider the project before patent costs escalate. ### Treat the patent as part of a business strategy Decide early whether you aim to license, assign, joint venture or manufacture. Each route affects how claims should be drafted, which countries matter, and what evidence partners will need. Our article on licensing versus joint venture versus assignment compares the options in detail. ### Develop before you pitch Ideas are cheap until they are developed. A working prototype, credible test data and a realistic manufacturing estimate transform a pitch from speculation into evidence. Development also uncovers improvements that can strengthen your patent position. ### Budget for the whole journey Create a realistic multi-year budget including patent prosecution, foreign filings, maintenance, development, and a reserve for defending your rights. Use the 12-month provisional period and the 30-month international PCT timeline to defer major costs until you know more about commercial prospects. ### Find a committed partner when the project is ready The central idea of the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach is that the inventor's company should seek a suitable, intrigued, and committed major partner when the project is ready for market, rather than striving merely to look attractive for a takeover. A partner brings manufacturing, distribution, credibility and legal muscle. Just as important, a partner whose business depends on the invention has a reason to defend it. ### File strategically, not exhaustively Not every improvement needs a patent, and not every country needs to be covered. Concentrate filings on the markets where your product will actually be made or sold and where your likely partners and competitors operate. Consider keeping manufacturing know-how as a trade secret rather than publishing it in a patent. A focused portfolio that protects the commercially important features is usually worth more, and costs far less, than a sprawling one that protects everything. Patents and trade secrets often work best together. ### Build evidence as you go Partners, investors and, if it comes to that, judges are persuaded by evidence. Keep dated records of development, test results, customer conversations and expressions of interest. This record helps you value the invention in negotiations, supports arguments that the invention was not obvious if your patent is ever challenged, and shows that you are a serious, organized counterpart. Inventors who can hand a prospective partner a well-organized technical and commercial file stand out from the many who arrive with only a patent certificate and enthusiasm. ### Learn from history Many inventions that changed the world were commercial disappointments for their first inventors, while others succeeded because the inventor allied with the right backers at the right time. Studying those patterns, from the merchants of Renaissance Venice who first received patent privileges to the industrial laboratories of the late nineteenth century, offers perspective on what really separates successful inventors from the rest. The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 set out the original bargain behind patents: protection in exchange for bringing useful inventions into practice. ### Know when to go it alone Partnering is not the only route. If you are confident in your market, have access to capital, and are not threatened by piracy or infringement, going to market alone or with an investor can work well and may preserve more value for you. The key is to make that choice deliberately, based on the realities of your industry. The bottom line: most patents do not fail because the invention is bad. They fail because the inventor lacked a plan, a market, enough money or the right partner. Each of those can be addressed, and the earlier you address them, the cheaper it is. ## A commercial-readiness checklist before you file broadly - Can you describe the customer, the problem and the price they would pay in one paragraph? - Have you spoken with at least several potential customers or industry experts? - Do you have a prototype or test data, or a clear plan to obtain it? - Have you estimated total costs for the next three to five years, including foreign filings and maintenance? - Have you chosen a primary commercialization route: license, partnership, assignment or own manufacturing? - Have you identified a shortlist of potential industry partners? - Have you considered how you would respond if your patent were infringed or challenged? Our Invention Readiness Check can help you work through these questions in more depth. This article is educational and is not legal or financial advice; consult a registered patent attorney or agent, and appropriate business advisors, about your own situation. Want to be in the small group of inventors whose patents succeed? Contact us by email to discuss your invention, your market and your partnering options. ## FAQ Q: What percentage of patents are commercially successful? A: There is no single authoritative figure, because commercial success is hard to define and track. Commonly cited estimates, including the figure of less than 2 percent used on this site, suggest that only a small minority of patents ever earn more than they cost. Q: Is a patent worthless if it is not commercialized? A: Not necessarily. Some patents have defensive value, support a company's freedom to operate, or strengthen a portfolio. But for an independent inventor who has paid for a patent personally, an uncommercialized patent is usually a net cost. Q: When should I think about commercialization? A: Before you file, and certainly before you spend heavily on foreign filings. Early market research, cost estimates and conversations with potential partners help you decide whether and how to protect the invention. Q: Do I need a partner to commercialize my patent? A: Not always. If you have capital, market access and confidence that you can defend your rights, going to market alone or with an investor can work. Many independent inventors, however, find that a committed industry partner supplies the manufacturing, distribution and legal strength they lack. Q: What happens if I stop paying maintenance fees? A: In the United States, utility patents require maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after grant. If a fee is not paid, the patent expires early and the invention falls into the public domain, subject to limited options for reinstatement. --- # From Idea to Prototype: How Inventors Turn a Concept into Something Partners Can Believe In URL: https://prepatent.org/from-idea-to-prototype/ Published: 2026-03-10 There is an old saying among inventors: ideas are cheap. It sounds harsh, but it captures an important truth. Many people have had a clever thought about a better product; very few have turned that thought into something that works. Until an idea is developed, tested and shown to solve a real problem, it is hard for anyone to judge its value, and harder still for a partner or investor to commit money to it. The prototype is the bridge between the two. This guide explains the main types of prototypes, how to test and iterate, how to manage costs, what to document, and how a good prototype changes the conversation with potential partners. ### Key points - A prototype turns a claim ("this will work") into evidence ("here it is working"). - Different prototypes answer different questions: proof-of-concept (does the principle work?), works-like (does it perform?), looks-like (will people want it?). - Each build should have a clear purpose and test plan, so you learn as much as possible for every dollar spent. - Document every iteration; this record supports your patent, your valuation and your credibility. - File a patent application before demonstrating publicly, and use confidentiality agreements with builders and testers. ## Why "ideas are cheap" until they are developed From a partner's perspective, an unproven idea carries every possible risk: technical risk (will it work?), manufacturing risk (can it be made at a sensible cost?), market risk (will anyone buy it?) and legal risk (can it be protected?). Each of those uncertainties reduces what a rational partner will pay or commit. Development is the process of removing risks one at a time. A working prototype removes or reduces technical risk; testing with users addresses market risk; a design-for-manufacture review addresses production risk; and a well-drafted patent application addresses legal risk. That is why the value of an invention tends to rise in steps as it moves from concept to proven prototype to production-ready design. The inventor who stops at the idea stage leaves most of that value on the table. The inventor who develops it, even modestly, captures a larger share, and gains a much stronger negotiating position. Our article on valuing sweat equity explains how that development effort translates into deal terms. History offers many reminders. Thomas Edison's Menlo Park laboratory is remembered not for a single flash of inspiration but for systematic testing of many materials and designs. The ideas behind many famous inventions were "in the air" among several people at once; the ones remembered were often those who built, tested and demonstrated something that worked. Our patent history timeline includes several examples. ## The main types of prototype ### Proof-of-concept prototype A proof-of-concept (POC) answers one question: does the underlying principle actually work? It is usually crude, built from off-the-shelf components, test rigs, breadboards, modified existing products, or simple simulations. It does not need to look like a product, be durable, or work outside the lab. A good POC is cheap, fast, and narrowly focused on the riskiest technical assumption. ### Works-like prototype A works-like prototype demonstrates that the invention can perform its intended function at a meaningful level: the right forces, speeds, power consumption, accuracy or efficiency. It may still be bulky or unattractive, but it behaves like the eventual product. This is the prototype engineers and technical evaluators on a partner's team will care most about. ### Looks-like prototype A looks-like prototype represents the size, shape, color, weight and feel of the intended product, often without working internals. It is used to test user reactions, ergonomics and market appeal, and it is powerful in presentations because people respond to what they can see and hold. ### Integrated (alpha and beta) prototypes Later in development, works-like and looks-like converge in integrated prototypes that both function and resemble the product. Alpha prototypes are used for internal testing; beta units may go to selected users or partners for field trials. At this stage, design for manufacture becomes important: choosing materials and processes that will work at production volume. | | Prototype type | Main question answered | Typical methods | Relative cost | Most persuasive to | Proof-of-concept | Does the principle work? | Test rigs, off-the-shelf parts, simulations, small-scale models | Low | You, technical advisors, early partners | Works-like | Does it perform at a useful level? | Machined or 3D-printed parts, development electronics, instrumented tests | Moderate | Engineers, technical due diligence teams | Looks-like | Will people want it, and how will they use it? | Industrial design, 3D printing, foam or resin models, renderings | Low to moderate | Marketing teams, users, investors | Integrated (alpha/beta) | Can it be made and used in real conditions? | Production-intent materials, short-run tooling, field trials | High | Manufacturing partners, licensees, larger investors Edison's Menlo Park laboratory: a reminder that inventions are developed through systematic testing ## Testing and iteration A prototype is only as useful as the testing done with it. Before you build, write down what you expect to learn. A simple test plan answers: - What is the hypothesis? For example, "injecting air at this rate under a test hull will reduce drag in still water." - What will be measured, and how? Define the instruments, units, conditions and number of repetitions. - What result counts as success? Set the threshold before testing, so you are not tempted to reinterpret results afterward. - What is the baseline? Compare against the existing solution or a control under the same conditions. - What will you change next if it fails? Plan the next iteration before you need it. Expect most early iterations to fail in some way. That is not a sign the invention is bad; it is how development works. Each failure narrows the design space and often reveals improvements that are themselves patentable. Keep failures in your records: they show the invention was not obvious and help explain why your final design is the way it is. When the technology is physical and scale-dependent, as in maritime engineering, testing also needs to account for scale. Results from small models in a tank do not always translate directly to full-size vessels. Our article on air lubrication and ship hulls discusses why partners with test facilities and operating fleets can be so valuable for this kind of development. ## Managing prototype costs Prototype budgets vary enormously depending on the technology. A simple mechanical gadget may need only a few 3D-printed parts; a vessel modification, medical device or industrial machine may require specialized materials, certified testing and expert help. Rather than guess at numbers, focus on controlling cost through decisions: - Build the cheapest thing that answers the question. Do not polish a POC; do not add electronics to a looks-like model unless they are needed. - Use rapid prototyping wisely. 3D printing, laser cutting and desktop CNC make early iterations faster and cheaper, but they are not always representative of production materials. - Test subsystems separately. Isolating the riskiest component often saves building the whole system repeatedly. - Use simulation where it is reliable. Computer modeling can screen design options before building, though physical testing remains essential for validation. - Tap shared resources. Makerspaces, university labs, technical colleges and government innovation programs may offer equipment or expertise. Check what is available in your region. - Get several quotes and protect your information. Use confidentiality and IP-assignment agreements with any outside designer or machine shop, so ownership of improvements stays clear. The rule of the next question: before every build, ask "what is the single most important thing we don't know yet?" and design the prototype to answer that, and nothing more. Spending in this disciplined way stretches a small budget much further. ## Documenting the journey Prototyping produces evidence that is valuable in several directions at once: for your patent applications, for defending your patent later, and for persuading partners. Keep: - Dated notebook entries describing each design, the reasoning behind it, and results. - Photographs and video of each prototype and test, with dates. - Raw test data, not just summaries, with notes on test conditions and equipment. - CAD files and drawings under version control. - Invoices and time logs, which help establish the cost of development for valuation purposes. - Records of who contributed to each improvement, to keep inventorship clear. These records feed directly into the practices described in our guide to protecting your idea before the patent. ## Prototypes and patents: timing matters US law does not require a working prototype to obtain a patent. Filing an application that adequately describes how to make and use the invention is treated as a "constructive reduction to practice." But prototyping often reveals details and improvements that make an application much stronger. Many inventors file a provisional application once the concept is clear, continue building and testing, and then file a more complete non-provisional application within the 12-month window, adding new matter as it is developed. New matter added later gets the later filing date, so file promptly when significant improvements emerge. Be careful about public demonstrations. Showing a working prototype at a trade show, in a public test, or in an online video before filing can create prior art that destroys patent rights in countries with absolute novelty requirements. Demonstrations to potential partners should take place under NDA and, ideally, after filing. ## How prototypes attract partners and investors A prototype changes the nature of a conversation. Instead of asking a partner to imagine, you invite them to evaluate. That has several effects: - Credibility. It shows you are a serious inventor who can execute, not only conceive. - Technical engagement. A partner's engineers can test, measure and challenge the device, which builds internal champions for the project. - Clearer valuation. Demonstrated performance makes it easier to estimate market benefit and to negotiate royalties or equity based on evidence. - Shared next steps. A prototype naturally leads to a joint development plan, which is often how a long-term partnership begins. This is central to the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy: rather than trying to make a startup look attractive for a quick takeover, the inventor develops the project to the point where a major industry partner can see its value clearly, and then seeks a committed partner to take it to market. In many industries, a works-like prototype with solid test data is the point at which those conversations become productive. Be realistic, though. Most partners will still want to see more: field results, manufacturing estimates, regulatory pathways. A prototype is not the end of development; it is the moment development becomes visible. ## A prototype roadmap checklist - Write a one-page description of the problem, the solution and the key technical uncertainty. - Start a dated development record. - File a provisional application, or confirm your filing plan, before any outside disclosure. - Build a proof-of-concept aimed at the riskiest assumption, with a written test plan. - Iterate toward a works-like prototype; record all results, including failures. - Create a looks-like model or renderings if user appeal matters in your market. - Update your patent filings to capture significant improvements. - Prepare a concise technical summary and demonstration for prospective partners, shared under NDA. You may also find it useful to work through our Invention Readiness Check to see where your project stands. This article is educational and is not legal or engineering advice; consult qualified professionals for your specific project. Have a prototype, or close to one, and wondering who should see it next? Contact us by email to discuss your project and how to approach suitable partners. ## FAQ Q: Do I need a prototype to get a patent? A: No. In the United States, filing a patent application that fully describes how to make and use the invention counts as a constructive reduction to practice, so a physical prototype is not legally required. In practice, building one often improves the application and makes the invention far easier to commercialize. Q: What is the difference between a works-like and a looks-like prototype? A: A works-like prototype proves the function and performance of the invention but may look rough. A looks-like prototype shows the intended appearance, size and feel of the product but may not work at all. Many products eventually combine both in an integrated prototype. Q: Should I file a patent application before showing my prototype? A: In most cases, yes. Demonstrating a prototype publicly before filing can create prior art that blocks patents in many countries. File at least a thorough provisional application before demonstrations, and use confidentiality agreements with anyone who builds or tests it for you. Q: How much does a prototype cost? A: Costs vary enormously by technology, from very little for a simple proof-of-concept built with off-the-shelf parts to substantial sums for engineered, test-ready models. The best way to control cost is to define what each prototype must prove and to build only that. --- # IP Piracy and Infringement: How Small Companies Can Defend Their Innovations URL: https://prepatent.org/ip-piracy-infringement-small-company-defense/ Published: 2026-02-24 For a small company, discovering that a competitor has copied its invention can feel like a robbery in broad daylight. The patent certificate on the wall says you have the right to exclude others, yet the copied product is on store shelves and online marketplaces, often sold by a company with far deeper pockets. The hard truth is that intellectual property rights do not enforce themselves. Their value depends on the owner's ability to detect infringement, prove it and respond effectively. This guide explains the practical tools available to small companies, the real costs involved, and why strategic partnering is one of the strongest defenses of all. ### Key points - IP rights are only as valuable as your ability to monitor, document and enforce them. - Build an evidence file early: dated records, test purchases, screenshots and product analysis. - Cease-and-desist letters can work, but they carry legal risks and should be prepared with counsel. - Patent litigation is expensive and slow; alternatives include negotiation, mediation, marketplace takedowns and customs measures. - Litigation funding, contingency arrangements and IP insurance can change the economics for small owners. - Trade secrets and a strong major partner add layers of protection that patents alone cannot provide. ## Understanding the threat "IP piracy" is an informal term that covers several different problems, and each calls for a different response: - Patent infringement: making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing a product or process covered by the claims of a granted patent without permission. - Counterfeiting: copying a brand, logo or trade dress so that buyers think a fake product is genuine. This is primarily a trademark problem. - Copyright infringement: copying software, manuals, designs, photographs or marketing content. - Trade secret misappropriation: obtaining confidential know-how through improper means, such as a departing employee or a partner who breaks a confidentiality agreement. - Design copying: imitating the ornamental appearance of a product, which may be protected by a design patent or industrial design registration. Before acting, identify exactly which right has been infringed and in which country. Patents and trademarks are territorial: a U.S. patent gives no rights in Canada, Israel or Europe, and vice versa. A copier operating in a country where you hold no rights may be acting lawfully there. ### What if your patent is still pending? Many small companies discover copying while their application is still under examination. A pending application cannot be enforced in court until a patent is granted, and "patent pending" is a notice, not a right. However, U.S. law under 35 U.S.C. 154(d) provides "provisional rights": once an application is published, the owner may later recover a reasonable royalty from someone who had actual notice of the published application, provided the claims that issue are substantially identical to the published claims. Some owners request accelerated examination when copying is suspected. These are technical questions, and a registered patent attorney or agent should advise on whether and how to use them. ## Step 1: Monitor the market You cannot defend what you do not see. Small companies can set up affordable monitoring routines: - Set alerts for your product names, key features and competitors in search engines and major online marketplaces. - Watch patent publications and new trademark filings in your field, using free databases from the USPTO, the EPO, WIPO and national offices. - Attend or follow trade shows, where copied products often first appear. - Ask distributors, customers and sales staff to report suspicious products. ## Step 2: Build an evidence file Enforcement succeeds or fails on evidence. Start a dedicated file as soon as you suspect infringement, and keep adding to it. - Document your own rights: patent numbers, registration certificates, claim charts, priority dates and records of invention such as dated lab notebooks and prototypes. - Capture the infringement: dated screenshots of listings, catalogs and websites, preserving full URLs. - Make test purchases: buy the product through normal channels, keep receipts and packaging, and record the chain of custody. - Analyze the product: have an engineer or patent professional compare it element by element with your patent claims. - Identify the players: manufacturer, importer, distributors and retailers, and where each operates. - Estimate the harm: lost sales, price erosion and the infringer's apparent volume. Our article on protecting your idea before the patent explains why good records from the earliest stage are so valuable later. Mind the deadlines and marking rules. In the United States, 35 U.S.C. 286 generally bars recovery of damages for infringement more than six years before suit is filed. Under 35 U.S.C. 287, if you sell a patented product without marking it with the patent number (physically or through permitted "virtual marking" on a website), damages may be limited to the period after the infringer receives actual notice. Delay can cost you money. ## Step 3: Choose a response ### Direct negotiation and cease-and-desist letters Many disputes end with a letter. A well-drafted notice identifies your rights and the infringing product and invites a response, which may lead to the infringer stopping, redesigning or taking a license. But letters carry risks. In the United States, a sufficiently specific accusation can allow the recipient to file a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of non-infringement or invalidity, potentially in a court of its choosing. The recipient may also challenge the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through inter partes review, a process available since September 16, 2012 and discussed in our article on PTAB defensive strategies. Always have counsel review a letter before it is sent. ### Marketplace takedowns Large online marketplaces operate procedures for reporting infringing listings, particularly for registered trademarks and copyrights, and some offer processes for patent complaints. These are fast and inexpensive compared with litigation, though they remove listings rather than award damages, and determined sellers may reappear under new names. ### Mediation and arbitration Alternative dispute resolution can be quicker, cheaper and more confidential than court. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, for example, specializes in intellectual property disputes, including cross-border ones. Both parties must agree to participate, so ADR works best when the infringer has its own reasons to settle. ### Litigation Litigation is the ultimate enforcement tool. In the United States, a court can award damages adequate to compensate for infringement, at least a reasonable royalty, and may increase damages up to three times for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. 284. Injunctions are available but, since the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange, are not automatic; courts weigh traditional equitable factors. The cost reality is sobering. Industry surveys, such as those published by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, have long reported that patent cases with significant amounts at stake can cost each side millions of dollars through trial, and cases frequently take several years including appeals. A defendant may respond with invalidity challenges and counterclaims. For a small company, a lawsuit can consume management attention and cash even when the case is strong. ## Changing the economics: funding and insurance | | Option | How it works | Advantages | Limitations | Contingency-fee counsel | Lawyers take a percentage of any recovery instead of hourly fees | Little upfront legal cost | Firms accept only strong cases with clear damages; large share of recovery | Hybrid fee arrangements | Reduced hourly rates plus a smaller success fee | Shares risk between owner and firm | Still requires significant cash | Third-party litigation funding | An investor pays costs in exchange for a share of proceeds | Enables enforcement without draining operating funds | Selective; due diligence takes time; reduces owner's net recovery | Enforcement (offensive) IP insurance | Policy covers some costs of pursuing infringers | Predictable premium; can deter copiers | Must be bought before a dispute arises; exclusions and limits apply | Defense (liability) IP insurance | Policy covers costs if you are accused of infringing others | Protects small firms from costly claims | Premiums vary with risk; coverage is not universal None of these options is free, and each involves sharing control or proceeds. But for a small owner with a strong patent and a well-documented case, they can turn an unaffordable lawsuit into a realistic one. Enforcement succeeds or fails on preparation, evidence and realistic budgeting. ## Stopping goods at the border Much infringing product is manufactured abroad and imported. Customs authorities can be powerful allies, though programs differ: - United States: owners of registered trademarks and copyrights can record them with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which then watches for infringing imports. Patents are not recorded in the same way; instead, a patent owner can seek an exclusion order from the U.S. International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which customs officers then enforce. - Canada: owners of registered trademarks and copyrights can file a Request for Assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency, a program introduced under the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. - European Union: owners can file an application for action with national customs authorities covering a range of IP rights, including patents. Customs measures are most effective against counterfeits, which border officers can identify visually. Technical patent infringement is harder to spot at a port, which is why the ITC route exists in the United States. ## Trade secrets: the protection that does not expire Not everything should be patented. Manufacturing methods, formulas, process parameters and know-how that cannot be reverse-engineered from the product may be better protected as trade secrets, which last as long as they remain secret. In the United States, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 created a federal civil action for misappropriation. Protection depends on taking reasonable measures to keep the information secret: - Use non-disclosure agreements with partners, contractors and potential investors. - Limit access to sensitive information to those who need it. - Mark confidential documents and train staff. - Have exit procedures for departing employees. A combined strategy, patenting what competitors could otherwise copy from the product and keeping the know-how behind it secret, often provides stronger protection than either approach alone. ## Strategic partnering as protection The most effective defense for many small companies is not a better lawsuit but a stronger position. An infringer weighs the likelihood that the patent owner will fight back. A lone inventor with limited funds looks like an easy target; the same patent licensed exclusively to a major manufacturer with an in-house legal department looks very different. This is one of the practical reasons behind the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach. The site's core message is that an inventor who is confident and not threatened by IP piracy may go to market alone or with an investor, but one facing a market where copying is likely should look for a suitable, committed major partner. Through a well-drafted license or joint venture, the partner can take on or share enforcement responsibility, contribute market presence that makes copying less profitable, and bring the credibility needed to negotiate settlements. Takeaway: Defense begins long before infringement. Clean records, careful marking, smart use of trade secrets, appropriate insurance and the right partner can make your innovation a hard target, and give you real options if someone copies it anyway. ## A small-company IP defense checklist - Know which rights you hold, in which countries, and when they expire. - Mark products correctly and keep records of marking. - Set up market and filing monitoring. - Maintain an evidence file and a chain of custody for samples. - Get legal advice before sending any accusation. - Investigate insurance before a dispute arises. - Record trademarks and copyrights with customs where available. - Protect know-how with confidentiality agreements and internal controls. - Consider whether a major partner would strengthen your enforcement position. This article is educational and not legal advice. Enforcement strategy depends on the facts and on the law of each country involved, so consult a registered patent attorney or agent before acting. Worried that your invention will be copied once it reaches the market? Learn how a pre-partnering strategy can strengthen your position. Contact us or review our services. ## FAQ Q: Should I send a cease-and-desist letter as soon as I find an infringer? A: Not without advice. A letter can resolve some disputes cheaply, but in the United States an accusatory letter may give the recipient grounds to file a declaratory judgment action in a court of its choosing. Have a patent attorney review your evidence and strategy first. Q: How far back can I recover patent damages in the United States? A: Under 35 U.S.C. 286, damages generally cannot be recovered for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint or counterclaim was filed. Failing to mark patented products under 35 U.S.C. 287 can also limit damages until the infringer has actual notice. Q: Can customs stop counterfeit or infringing goods at the border? A: Often, yes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection lets owners record registered trademarks and copyrights, and patent exclusion orders issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission are enforced at the border. Canada and the European Union have their own customs assistance programs, with differing scope. Q: What is litigation funding? A: Litigation funding is investment by a third party that pays some or all of the costs of a lawsuit in exchange for a share of any recovery. It can make enforcement possible for a small patent owner, but funders are selective and the terms reduce the owner's share of the proceeds. Q: How can partnering protect against IP piracy? A: A major partner with an exclusive license or joint venture interest often has the resources, legal team and market presence to deter and fight infringement. Aligning your invention with such a partner can make it a far less attractive target for copiers. --- # Protecting Your Idea Before the Patent: NDAs, Trade Secrets, Provisionals and Safe Disclosure URL: https://prepatent.org/protecting-your-idea-before-the-patent/ Published: 2026-01-14 Every inventor eventually faces the same dilemma. To turn an idea into a business, you have to talk about it: to engineers, manufacturers, investors and, above all, potential partners. But every conversation is also a risk. Disclose too much, too early, to the wrong person, and you may lose control of the invention or even your right to patent it. Disclose too little, and nobody will take you seriously. The good news is that inventors have a set of well-established tools for navigating this period. Used together, they let you share enough to build relationships while protecting what matters most. ### Key points - An NDA is a contract, not a property right: it helps, but only against those who sign it and only if it is well drafted. - Trade secret law can protect information you keep confidential through reasonable measures, but the protection ends if the secret becomes public or is reverse engineered. - Dated, witnessed records of conception and development remain valuable under the first-inventor-to-file system. - A US provisional application secures a filing date for 12 months at relatively low cost. - The US offers a one-year grace period for an inventor's own disclosures; many other countries do not. File before you disclose if foreign rights matter. ## Why the pre-patent period is the riskiest Since March 16, 2013, the United States has operated under a first-inventor-to-file system introduced by the America Invents Act. In practical terms, the date you file a patent application is now the single most important date in the life of your invention. Most of the world has long worked this way. That means the time between conceiving an idea and filing an application is a window of exposure: anyone who learns of the idea, or independently arrives at it, and files first may gain rights you cannot easily undo. There is also a second danger that inventors often underestimate. Your own public disclosure, at a trade show, in a crowdfunding video, in a published article or even in an overly detailed pitch deck shared widely, can become prior art against your future application in many countries. Protecting an idea before the patent is therefore about two things: controlling who learns about it, and controlling when it becomes public. ## Non-disclosure agreements: what makes them work A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also called a confidentiality agreement, is a contract in which one party agrees not to disclose or misuse confidential information received from another. A well-drafted NDA typically includes: - A clear definition of confidential information. Vague definitions are hard to enforce. Many NDAs require disclosures to be marked "confidential" or, if oral, confirmed in writing within a set period. - Standard exclusions. Information already known to the recipient, already public, independently developed, or lawfully received from a third party is normally excluded. Courts expect these exclusions, and their absence can make an NDA look unreasonable. - Permitted purpose. The recipient may use the information only to evaluate a potential business relationship, not to develop competing products. - Duration. Both the period during which disclosures are covered and how long the obligation of confidentiality lasts. For true trade secrets, the obligation may need to last as long as the information remains secret. - Return or destruction of materials when discussions end. - Remedies and governing law, including the right to seek an injunction, and which jurisdiction's law and courts apply. - Consideration, meaning something of value exchanged. In a mutual NDA, each side's promise usually supplies this. ### The limits of NDAs NDAs are valuable, but inventors should understand their limits: - They bind only the signatories. If information leaks to a third party who did not sign, your remedy is generally against the party that leaked it. - Enforcement is expensive. Proving that a large company misused your information, rather than developing something similar independently, can be very difficult. - Many large companies will not sign an NDA for unsolicited ideas. They often require inventors to submit under a policy stating that the submission is not confidential, to protect themselves against claims from inventors whose ideas overlap with internal projects. If you receive such a policy, take it seriously: it usually means you should file a patent application before sharing anything substantive. - An NDA does not stop independent invention. If a competitor develops the same thing on its own, the NDA gives you no rights against it. Do not treat an NDA as a patent substitute. The safest sequence for most inventors is: document the invention, file at least a provisional application, then disclose under an NDA, and only disclose what the other party needs to know at that stage. ## Trade secrets: protection through secrecy Some valuable information is better protected by keeping it secret than by patenting it. In the United States, trade secrets are protected by state laws, most of which are based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and by the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Canada and Israel also protect confidential business information, through different legal frameworks. Broadly, information qualifies as a trade secret when it derives economic value from not being generally known, and its owner takes reasonable measures to keep it secret. Trade secret protection has real advantages: there is no filing, no fee, no public disclosure, and no fixed expiry. But it also has a fatal weakness. Once the secret is out, whether through independent discovery, reverse engineering of a product, or a leak, protection is gone. For a mechanical device sold to the public, the inner workings are usually visible to anyone with a screwdriver, which is why patents remain the main tool for product inventions. A practical approach many inventors use is a hybrid: patent the features that will be visible in the product, and keep certain know-how, such as manufacturing parameters, supplier details, test data or process tweaks, as trade secrets. That know-how can later be very valuable in negotiations, because a partner gets more than a license; it gets the experience needed to make the invention work. Our article on sweat equity and inventor valuation explains how to value that contribution. ### Reasonable measures you can take now - Limit access to sensitive files and drawings on a need-to-know basis. - Mark confidential documents clearly. - Use written confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements with employees, contractors and collaborators. - Keep a log of who received what information and when. - Split work among suppliers so no single vendor sees the whole design, where practical. ## Evidence of conception: why dated records still matter Under the old US "first-to-invent" system, inventors' notebooks were often decisive in priority contests. Under first-inventor-to-file, the filing date usually decides priority, and some inventors conclude that records no longer matter. That is a mistake. Well-kept records still help you: - Prove inventorship. If a collaborator, contractor or former partner claims to be a co-inventor, your records show who contributed what and when. - Challenge derivation. The AIA created derivation proceedings for cases where someone files an application for an invention derived from another person's work. Your dated records are central evidence. - Support your patent later. Records of failed approaches, test results and the problem you set out to solve can help rebut obviousness challenges, including at the PTAB, discussed in our article on PTAB defensive strategies. - Demonstrate value to partners. A clear development history shows that the invention is real and that you have done serious work. ### How to keep good records - Use a bound notebook with numbered pages, or a reliable electronic system that creates tamper-evident timestamps. - Write in ink, date every entry, and do not leave blank spaces or tear out pages. - Describe the problem, your idea, sketches, calculations, materials and test results, including failures. - Periodically have a trusted, technically competent person who is not a co-inventor read and sign key pages as a witness, under a confidentiality obligation. - Keep supporting files, such as CAD models, photos and supplier quotes, organized by date, with backups. A note of caution: mailing yourself a sealed description of your invention, sometimes called a "poor man's patent," does not create any patent rights. At most it is weak evidence of when you had an idea. Careful, dated records from the lab or workshop remain valuable evidence of inventorship ## Provisional applications: buying 12 months A US provisional patent application is often the most cost-effective first step in protecting an invention. Key facts: - It establishes a US filing date and allows you to mark the invention "patent pending." - You have 12 months to file a non-provisional US application, and typically a PCT international application or direct foreign filings, claiming the benefit of the provisional's date. The 12-month period matches the priority period under the Paris Convention of 1883. - It is not examined and does not require formal claims, though including at least some claims is often recommended. - It is not published on its own, though it becomes available to the public if a later published application or patent relies on it. - It cannot become a patent by itself. If you do not file the follow-on application in time, the provisional's filing date is generally lost. The most important rule: a provisional only protects what it describes. If it is a two-paragraph summary, it may not support the claims you later need. The description must enable a skilled person to make and use the invention. A thin provisional can create false confidence. Investing in a thorough description, with drawings and alternative embodiments, pays off later. Fee reductions are available to small entities and micro entities; check the current fee schedule on uspto.gov. ## Public disclosure and grace periods: the US is the exception This is the trap that catches more inventors than any other. Rules about disclosure before filing vary significantly by country. The table below gives a simplified overview; details and exceptions matter, so confirm with a patent professional before any disclosure. | | Jurisdiction | General rule on inventor's own prior disclosure | United States | One-year grace period for disclosures by the inventor (or by others who obtained the subject matter from the inventor) | Canada | One-year grace period for disclosures by the applicant or someone who obtained the information from the applicant | Japan | 12-month grace period, subject to procedural requirements | European Patent Convention countries | Absolute novelty; only narrow exceptions (such as evident abuse or certain recognized international exhibitions, within six months) | China | Limited six-month grace period for specific circumstances only The lesson is simple: if you may want patent protection outside the United States, file before you disclose. Even within the US, relying on the grace period is risky. If a third party independently publishes a related idea after your disclosure but before your filing, complex questions can arise. The grace period is a safety net, not a strategy. For more on international filing routes, see the resources from the World Intellectual Property Organization. ## Controlled disclosure to potential partners At some point you must show your invention to the companies that can bring it to market. That is the heart of the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach. Disclosure can be managed in stages: - Stage one: the non-confidential summary. Describe the problem solved, the benefits, the market and the status of development, without revealing how it works. This is enough to test interest. - Stage two: disclosure under NDA, after filing. With at least a provisional on file and an NDA signed, share technical details needed for evaluation: drawings, performance data, prototype demonstrations. - Stage three: deep technical and commercial due diligence. Once there is a term sheet or letter of intent, share manufacturing know-how and trade secrets under stronger contractual protections. Throughout this process, keep a disclosure log noting the date, recipient, materials shared and agreement in place. Watch for signals: a prospective partner that refuses any confidentiality but asks for full technical details is not a partner yet. Our guide on how to find the right major partner covers how to evaluate counterparties. ## Putting it all together: a pre-patent protection checklist - Start a dated invention record today, and keep it up to date. - Sign confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements with anyone helping you. - Decide which elements are patentable and visible, and which are know-how to keep secret. - Conduct a preliminary prior-art search. - File a thorough provisional or non-provisional application before any public disclosure. - Calendar your 12-month deadline and plan the budget for the follow-on filings. - Disclose to partners in stages, under NDA, and log every disclosure. - Consult a registered patent attorney or agent before any trade show, publication, crowdfunding launch or sale. This article is educational and not legal advice. Laws differ across jurisdictions and change over time. Please consult a registered patent attorney or agent about your specific situation, and see our glossary for definitions of the terms used here. Ready to share your invention with the right people, the right way? Contact us by email to discuss how a staged, protected approach to partnering could work for your project. ## FAQ Q: Does an NDA protect my invention the way a patent does? A: No. An NDA is a contract that binds only the people who sign it, and it gives you a claim for breach rather than an exclusive right against the world. It is a useful tool for controlled disclosure, but it is not a substitute for filing a patent application. Q: How long does a US provisional patent application last? A: A US provisional application gives you 12 months to file a non-provisional application (or an international PCT application) that claims its filing date. The provisional itself is never examined and cannot become a patent on its own. Q: If I publicly disclose my invention, can I still patent it? A: In the United States, inventors generally have a one-year grace period after their own public disclosure. Many other jurisdictions, including those under the European Patent Convention, require absolute novelty, so a disclosure before filing can destroy patent rights there. Q: Do lab notebooks still matter under first-inventor-to-file? A: Yes. Although US priority now generally goes to the first inventor to file, dated records help prove that you are the true inventor, resolve inventorship disputes, support derivation claims if someone copies your work, and document the development history partners and investors want to see. Q: Should I keep my invention as a trade secret instead of patenting it? A: It depends on whether the invention can be kept secret once it is in use. Processes and formulas hidden inside a factory can sometimes be protected indefinitely as trade secrets, but anything a competitor can reverse engineer from a product is usually better protected by a patent. --- # PTAB and Independent Inventors: How the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Works and How to Defend Your Patent URL: https://prepatent.org/ptab-independent-inventors-defensive-strategies/ Published: 2025-11-18 For most independent inventors, the day a patent is granted feels like the finish line. It may start a second contest. Since 2012, anyone who wants to knock out an issued U.S. patent has had a fast, specialized venue for doing so: the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB. Understanding how the Board works, what it costs, and how to prepare for it is no longer optional knowledge for an inventor who plans to license, partner or enforce. This guide explains the mechanics in plain English, sets out the concerns that inventor advocates have raised, and offers practical defensive strategies you can build into your plans long before anyone files a petition. ### Key points - The PTAB was created by the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011; its trial proceedings for IPR and PGR began on September 16, 2012. - Inter partes review (IPR) challenges novelty and obviousness using prior patents and printed publications; post-grant review (PGR) allows nearly any invalidity ground but only within nine months of grant. - Challengers need only prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower bar than the "clear and convincing" standard used in federal court. - Estoppel limits a losing petitioner from relitigating grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised. - Your best defenses are built early: careful claim drafting, continuation filings, strong documentation, a realistic budget, and an aligned partner. ## What the Patent Trial and Appeal Board actually does The PTAB is an administrative tribunal inside the United States Patent and Trademark Office, staffed by administrative patent judges with legal and technical training. It has two distinct jobs. The first is ex parte appeals: if an examiner rejects your application, you can appeal to the Board. The second is AIA trials: adversarial proceedings in which a third party, usually a company accused of infringement or worried that it might be, asks the Board to cancel claims of an issued patent. These trials, mainly inter partes review and post-grant review, are the focus of this article. (A transitional covered business method program expired in 2020.) The AIA trial system was designed by Congress, as part of the America Invents Act, to be a faster and cheaper alternative to challenging patent validity in federal court. Whether it has struck the right balance is one of the most debated questions in modern patent policy. ## IPR and PGR basics ### Inter partes review (IPR) Inter partes review is by far the most common AIA trial. Its key features are: - Who can file: almost anyone other than the patent owner. A challenger does not need to have been sued. - When: after the later of nine months from grant or the end of any post-grant review. However, if the petitioner has been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent, it must file within one year of that service. - Grounds: only lack of novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (§ 103), and only on the basis of prior patents and printed publications. Arguments about prior public use, on-sale activity, eligibility or inadequate written description are not available in an IPR. - Institution threshold: the petitioner must show a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. ### Post-grant review (PGR) Post-grant review is broader but available for only a short window: - When: within nine months of the patent's grant or reissue, and only for patents examined under the first-inventor-to-file system (generally those with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013). - Grounds: nearly any ground of invalidity, including subject-matter eligibility, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, prior use and on-sale bars. - Institution threshold: the petitioner must show it is "more likely than not" that at least one claim is unpatentable, or raise a novel or unsettled legal question important to other patents. ### The typical timeline Both proceedings follow a similar statutory rhythm. The table below summarizes the main stages for an IPR; PGR is broadly similar. | | Stage | What happens | Approximate timing | Petition filed | Challenger files petition with prior art, expert declarations and fees | Day 0 | Notice of filing date | Board accords a filing date and notifies the patent owner | Usually within weeks | Patent owner preliminary response | Optional response arguing the petition should be denied | Within 3 months of the notice | Institution decision | Board decides whether to start a trial | Within 3 months of the preliminary response deadline | Trial phase | Patent owner response, discovery (mainly expert depositions), petitioner reply, possible motion to amend, oral hearing | Roughly 9 to 10 months | Final written decision | Board rules on patentability of each challenged claim | Within 1 year of institution (extendable up to 6 months for good cause) | Appeal | Either party may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Often another year or more ### The legal standards that matter Three standards shape the outcome of most PTAB trials: - Burden of proof. In an AIA trial, the petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning "more likely than not." In federal court, by contrast, an issued patent is presumed valid and a challenger must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, a standard the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Microsoft v. i4i (2011). The same patent can therefore survive in court and fall at the Board on the same evidence. - Claim construction. For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, the Board interprets claims using the same standard as federal courts (the Phillips standard), replacing the older and generally broader "broadest reasonable interpretation" approach. - Institution scope. Since the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, if the Board institutes a trial, it must decide the patentability of every claim the petitioner challenged. The constitutionality of the IPR system itself was upheld by the Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene's Energy (2018). In United States v. Arthrex (2021), the Court held that the USPTO Director must have the power to review Board decisions, which led to the current Director Review process. ### Estoppel: the rule that limits repeat challenges Once the Board issues a final written decision in an IPR, the petitioner (and its real parties in interest and privies) is estopped from asserting, in court or at the USPTO, that a claim is invalid on any ground it "raised or reasonably could have raised" during the IPR. PGR estoppel works the same way but is broader in effect, because a PGR can raise almost any ground. Estoppel is an important protection for patent owners, but it has limits: it applies only to the specific petitioner and those connected to it, it attaches only after a final written decision, and it does not prevent challenges based on evidence that could not be raised in an IPR, such as a physical product that was on sale before the filing date. ### Discretionary denial and a shifting policy landscape The statute gives the USPTO Director discretion over whether to institute a trial, even when the petition meets the threshold. Over the past several years, the Office's approach to so-called discretionary denial, for example when parallel court litigation is far advanced or when the patent has been in force and relied upon for many years, has changed repeatedly through memos, precedential decisions and proposed rules. Since 2025, USPTO leadership has taken a notably more active role in institution decisions. Because these policies continue to evolve, any inventor facing or anticipating a petition should ask a registered practitioner for the current rules rather than relying on articles, including this one. The USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia, home of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ## Why inventor advocates are concerned From the perspective of many independent inventors and inventor organizations, including the viewpoint presented on this site, the AIA trial system shifted the balance of power toward large, well-funded challengers. It is worth stating these concerns clearly while recognizing that others see the system differently. - Two bites at the apple. An accused infringer can defend in court and, in parallel, attack validity at the Board under a lower burden of proof. Inventor advocates argue this doubles the cost and risk of enforcing a patent. - Uncertainty for investors. If a granted patent can be cancelled years later, a patent is a less reliable asset to finance. Advocates contend this discourages investment in early-stage inventors and pushes them toward selling out to large incumbents. - Multiple petitions. A single patent may face several petitions from one or more challengers, each requiring a response. For an individual inventor, even a handful of petitions can be financially overwhelming. - Cost asymmetry. A large company can treat PTAB fees as a routine legal expense. For a solo inventor, the cost of a defense may exceed the money spent obtaining the patent in the first place. Supporters respond that IPR is cheaper and faster than court litigation, that technical judges are well suited to evaluate prior art, and that the process removes patents that should never have issued. A balanced view recognizes both: the PTAB is a real check on low-quality patents and a real burden on legitimate inventors who lack resources. That tension is part of why this site advocates a broader rethink of patent policy, explored in our article on the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 and the original purpose of patents. The practical takeaway: you cannot control whether someone challenges your patent, but you can control how prepared you are. A patent that was drafted, documented and financed with a PTAB challenge in mind is far harder to cancel, and far more valuable to a partner, than one that was not. ## Defensive strategies for independent inventors ### 1. Draft claims for the fight, not just for allowance Many patents fall at the PTAB because they were drafted to get past an examiner, not to survive a well-funded challenger. Work with your practitioner on: - A layered claim set with broad independent claims supported by progressively narrower dependent claims. If the broad claim falls, a narrow claim that still covers the commercial product may survive. - Claims tied to concrete technical features that distinguish the invention from what came before, rather than functional language that reads on a wide range of prior art. - A thorough prior-art search before filing, so that you, not a future challenger, discover the most relevant references first and draft around them. - A rich specification with multiple embodiments, test data and explanations of why the invention works. This supports later amendments and helps defend against obviousness arguments. ### 2. Keep a continuation application pending A pending continuation application in the same patent family is one of the most useful tools an inventor can have. If a parent patent is challenged, the continuation allows you to pursue new claims that avoid the cited prior art and target competitors' actual products. It also signals to challengers that cancelling one patent will not end the matter. The trade-off is cost, so discuss with your practitioner how long it makes sense to keep the family alive. ### 3. Document the evidence of non-obviousness Obviousness is the most common ground in PTAB trials. Patent owners can rebut it with "objective indicia," sometimes called secondary considerations: commercial success tied to the claimed features, long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, industry praise, copying by competitors, and licensing. These arguments only work if there is evidence. Keep dated records of test results, customer feedback, partner interest, competitor attempts, and trade publications that describe the problem your invention solves. Our guide to protecting your idea before the patent explains how to build these records from the start. ### 4. Consider your own reexamination strategy If you discover a troubling piece of prior art after grant, you can ask the USPTO to examine it yourself, through ex parte reexamination or supplemental examination, before a challenger uses it against you. A patent that has already been confirmed over a reference is harder to attack on that reference later. This is a strategic decision to make with counsel, since it reopens prosecution. ### 5. Plan the budget before you enforce Assume that any serious assertion against a well-funded company may trigger a petition, and plan before sending a demand letter. Ask practitioners to estimate a preliminary response, a full trial and an appeal, and explore contingency arrangements, litigation funding, insurance, or a partner who will share the cost. ### 6. Bring in a partner with aligned interests This is where the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy becomes a defensive tool as well as a commercial one. A major industry partner that has licensed or co-invested in your technology has a direct interest in keeping the patent alive. It brings legal budget, technical experts, and the market credibility that supports arguments about commercial success. A challenger may also think twice before attacking a patent backed by a serious industry player. Our guide on how to find the right major partner explains what to look for. ## A pre-enforcement readiness checklist - Have you obtained a professional opinion on the validity of your key claims against the best prior art you can find? - Do your claims include narrower dependent claims that still cover your commercial product or a partner's product? - Is a continuation application pending in the patent family? - Have you collected dated evidence of commercial interest, industry need, and any copying? - Do you know whether the nine-month PGR window is still open on your patent? - Have you estimated the cost of a preliminary response, a full trial and an appeal, and identified who will pay? - Does a partner, investor or licensee share the risk and the reward of defending the patent? If you answer "no" or "not sure" to several of these, it may be wise to strengthen your position before asserting the patent. Our Invention Readiness Check can help you think through the broader commercial picture. ## A note on perspective None of this means an independent inventor should avoid patents or enforcement. It means the old model of "get the patent, then sue the infringer" is riskier than many assume. In our view, the stronger path is to protect the invention, develop it until its value is visible, and find a committed partner before the patent becomes a target. This article is educational and is not legal advice; consult a registered patent attorney or agent, ideally one with Board experience, about your own patents. Want help thinking through your patent's exposure and your partnering options? Contact us by email to start a confidential conversation about your invention and the kind of partner that could help you defend and commercialize it. ## FAQ Q: What is the difference between an IPR and a PGR? A: A post-grant review (PGR) must be filed within nine months of a patent's grant and can raise almost any invalidity ground. An inter partes review (IPR) can be filed after that window but is limited to novelty and obviousness challenges based on prior patents and printed publications. Q: How long does a PTAB trial take? A: By statute, the Board must normally issue a final written decision within one year of instituting a trial, extendable by up to six months for good cause. Counting the petition and institution phase, the whole process typically runs about a year and a half. Q: Can an independent inventor afford to defend a patent at the PTAB? A: Defending a PTAB trial is far cheaper than full court litigation, but it is still a significant expense for an individual. Many inventors plan for it by budgeting early, building a strong patent family, and securing a partner or backer whose interests align with keeping the patent alive. Q: What is IPR estoppel? A: After a final written decision, the petitioner cannot later argue in court or at the USPTO that a claim is invalid on any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. This prevents the same challenger from repeatedly relitigating the same prior art. Q: Can I amend my claims during a PTAB trial? A: Yes, a patent owner may file a motion to amend proposing substitute claims, but the amendments cannot broaden the claims or add new matter. Amendment practice is technical, so it is best handled by a registered practitioner experienced with the Board. --- # Air Lubrication Under Ship Hulls: Lessons in Maritime Innovation and Partnering URL: https://prepatent.org/air-lubrication-ship-hulls-maritime-innovation/ Published: 2025-09-09 Water is heavy, sticky and relentless. Every ship that crosses an ocean spends a large share of its fuel simply dragging its hull through it. For more than a century, naval architects have searched for ways to make that contact less costly. One of the most intriguing answers is also one of the simplest to describe: put a layer of air between the hull and the sea. Air lubrication has moved from laboratory curiosity to commercial installations, and it offers a revealing case study in how maritime innovations succeed or stall. It is also the field in which this site's sponsoring corporation, Superior Hulls Inc., is working. ### Key points - Frictional resistance between hull and water is a major component of a ship's total resistance, especially for large, slow vessels. - Air lubrication introduces air under the hull to reduce the wetted contact area and the friction it causes. - IMO energy efficiency rules (EEDI, EEXI and CII) give shipowners strong regulatory reasons to adopt proven efficiency technologies. - The maritime market is conservative, capital-intensive and dominated by large players, which makes going it alone very difficult for an inventor. - Superior Hulls Inc. is pursuing an injected-air approach and seeking a wise major maritime partner, an example of the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach in practice. ## The problem: why hulls waste energy Naval architects break a ship's resistance into components. The two most important are wave-making resistance, the energy spent creating the wave system a ship leaves behind, and frictional (viscous) resistance, the drag created as water shears along the hull's wetted surface. The English engineer William Froude laid much of the foundation for this analysis in the nineteenth century with his towing-tank experiments, and the separation of resistance into frictional and residual parts remains central to ship design today. For fast, slender craft, wave-making can dominate. For large, slow, full-bodied ships such as tankers, bulk carriers and many container ships, frictional resistance is commonly described as the largest single component. These are exactly the ships that burn the most fuel worldwide. Reducing friction on them, even modestly, has a large cumulative effect on cost and emissions. Traditional tools for reducing friction include smooth hull coatings, antifouling paints that prevent marine growth, and regular hull cleaning. These are valuable, but they work on the quality of the wetted surface. Air lubrication tackles the wetted surface itself. ## The concept: separating hull from water with air Air is roughly eight hundred times less dense than water and far less viscous. If part of the hull's flat bottom is in contact with air rather than water, the shear forces on that part fall sharply. The engineering challenge is to keep the air where it is useful, at an energy cost lower than the energy saved. ### Three broad approaches - Bubble lubrication: small bubbles are injected into the boundary layer near the hull, modifying the flow and reducing friction. - Air layer lubrication: a larger flow of air forms a more continuous film beneath the flat bottom of the hull. - Air cavity systems: recesses built into the hull bottom are filled with air, creating stable pockets that reduce wetted area. Each approach involves trade-offs among air-supply power, stability of the air layer in waves and turns, effects on propeller performance, structural changes to the hull and suitability for new builds versus retrofits. Systems from several marine technology suppliers have been fitted to commercial vessels, including cruise ships, gas carriers and cargo ships, and the concept is now widely discussed in the industry as one of several technologies for improving energy efficiency. Be careful with savings claims. Performance depends on hull form, speed, draft, loading, sea state and the energy consumed by compressors or blowers. Reported results vary considerably. Any inventor or buyer should rely on model tests, sea trials and independent verification for a specific vessel rather than headline percentages. ### An old idea that needed its moment The idea of reducing a hull's friction with air is not new. Engineers and inventors proposed variations of it from the nineteenth century onward, and researchers in several countries studied bubble and air-layer drag reduction in laboratories and test basins over many decades. For much of that time, the concept struggled to cross from experiment to routine commercial use. Fuel was relatively cheap, efficiency regulation was weak, and the engineering of reliable air-supply systems on large ships was demanding. That pattern will be familiar to readers of our article on the electric car paradox: a sound physical principle can wait a long time for the economics, the regulations and the supporting technology to catch up. What changed for air lubrication was a combination of higher fuel costs, better compressors, controls and computational tools, and, above all, binding international efficiency rules. ## The regulatory driver: IMO energy efficiency rules Technologies like air lubrication matter more today because the regulatory environment has changed. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations agency responsible for the safety and environmental performance of international shipping, has adopted a series of energy efficiency measures under Annex VI of the MARPOL convention: | | Measure | What it does | In force | EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) | Sets minimum design efficiency standards for new ships, tightened in phases | Mandatory for new ships from 1 January 2013 | SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan) | Requires an operational plan for managing a ship's energy efficiency | From 1 January 2013, later strengthened | EEXI (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index) | Applies design-efficiency requirements to existing ships | From 1 January 2023 | CII (Carbon Intensity Indicator) | Rates a ship's annual operational carbon intensity from A to E | From 1 January 2023 In 2023 the IMO also adopted a revised greenhouse gas strategy that aims for net-zero emissions from international shipping by or around 2050. IMO guidance on innovative energy efficiency technologies addresses how measures such as air lubrication can be reflected in efficiency calculations. For shipowners, this means efficiency is no longer only a matter of fuel savings; it affects compliance, ratings, charter attractiveness and the long-term value of their fleets. For background on the organization itself, see the overview of the International Maritime Organization. Large, slow cargo ships are among the vessels where frictional resistance matters most. ## The sponsor's approach: Superior Hulls Inc. This site is sponsored by Superior Hulls Inc. (Canada/Israel), a maritime innovation company. Superior Hulls describes its work as a new science of controlled collision between solid bodies and fluid bodies, using injected air under hulls to improve economy, performance, comfort, safety and speed. The company states that it is seeking a wise major maritime partner to bring the technology forward. More information is available on the company's own website, superiorhulls.com. We mention the sponsor not to make claims about results, which only testing and a partner's validation can establish, but because its strategy illustrates the central argument of this site. Superior Hulls has chosen not to try to break into shipbuilding alone. It is looking for the right partner first. ## Why the maritime market is hostile to lone inventors Few industries are as difficult for an independent inventor to enter directly as commercial shipbuilding. Consider the barriers: - Capital intensity: a single test installation can require dry-dock time, structural modifications, compressors, piping and control systems on a vessel worth many millions of dollars. - Long asset lives: ships typically operate for decades, so owners are cautious about modifications that could affect reliability or resale value. - Classification and safety approval: classification societies and flag administrations must be satisfied that changes are safe. Approval takes engineering documentation, time and credibility. - Proof requirements: owners want sea-trial data from comparable vessels before committing. Without access to ships, an inventor cannot generate that data. - Concentrated buyers and builders: a relatively small number of large shipyards, owners and operators shape what gets adopted. - IP exposure: once a hull concept is visible in a dry dock or described in a technical paper, it can be studied and imitated by companies with far greater resources. An inventor who tries to fight through all of these barriers alone risks running out of money long before the first commercial order, or seeing a well-funded competitor commercialize a similar concept first. This is the kind of hostile market the site's core message warns about. ## Why a wise major partner changes the equation The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach holds that, when a project is ready for market, the inventor's company should search for a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner rather than striving to be attractive for a takeover. In the maritime context, a major partner might be a shipyard, a ship operator, a marine equipment manufacturer or an engineering group with a fleet relationship. Such a partner can supply: - Test platforms: real hulls for model and full-scale trials. - Engineering depth: naval architects and systems engineers to integrate the technology safely. - Regulatory pathways: established relationships with classification societies and flag states. - Market credibility: a trusted name that owners will listen to. - Manufacturing and service: the ability to install and maintain systems worldwide. - Enforcement strength: the resources to defend patents against imitation. The word "wise" matters. The right partner is not simply the largest company. It is one whose strategy benefits from the technology's success, which will commit resources rather than shelve the idea, and which respects the inventor's contribution through a fair structure, whether an exclusive field-of-use license, a joint venture or another arrangement. Our articles on finding the right major partner and choosing a deal structure go into those choices. ### What a maritime partnering proposal should contain A major shipyard or operator receives many unsolicited ideas. To stand out, an inventor's company should present a disciplined, partner-ready package: - A clear statement of the problem solved and the vessel types that benefit most. - The current state of intellectual property protection, described accurately and without overstating its scope. - The evidence available so far, such as calculations, simulations or scale-model results, with their limitations stated honestly. - A proposed validation program: what tests are needed next, on what kind of vessel, and at what approximate cost. - The partner's expected role and benefit, including how the technology supports its own efficiency and compliance goals. - A flexible view of deal structures, from licensing to joint development. Confidentiality should be addressed before technical details are shared, typically through a non-disclosure agreement reviewed by counsel. Takeaway: In heavy, regulated industries like shipping, the inventor's most valuable asset after the invention itself is the right ally. Seeking that ally deliberately, before going to market, is often wiser than trying to conquer a hostile market alone. ## Lessons for inventors in any heavy industry The air lubrication story applies well beyond ships. Aerospace, rail, energy, mining and medical devices share similar features: expensive validation, safety regulation, conservative buyers and dominant incumbents. Inventors in these sectors should: - Protect the core invention carefully before public disclosure; see protecting your idea before the patent. - Generate the best evidence they can afford, such as models, simulations and small-scale prototypes. - Map the industry's decision-makers and identify which ones gain the most from adoption. - Understand the regulatory drivers that make the invention timely. - Approach potential partners with a clear, realistic proposal rather than a demand for a buyout. As always, this article is educational and not legal or engineering advice. Consult a registered patent attorney or agent and qualified marine engineers for decisions about a specific technology. Are you a maritime company interested in hull efficiency innovation, or an inventor facing a hostile industry? We welcome serious inquiries. Contact us by email to begin the conversation. ## FAQ Q: What is air lubrication for ships? A: Air lubrication is the practice of introducing air beneath a ship's hull, as bubbles, a thin air layer or an air-filled cavity, so that less of the hull surface is in direct contact with water. Because air is far less dense and viscous than water, this can reduce frictional resistance and therefore the power and fuel needed at a given speed. Q: How much fuel can air lubrication save? A: Results depend heavily on hull shape, ship type, speed, draft, sea conditions and the energy used to supply the air. Reported savings vary widely, so any figure should be verified through model testing, sea trials and independent measurement for the specific vessel. Q: Why does the IMO matter for hull efficiency innovations? A: The International Maritime Organization sets global rules on ship energy efficiency, including the Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships (mandatory from 2013) and the EEXI and Carbon Intensity Indicator measures in force from 2023. These rules give owners a regulatory reason to adopt proven efficiency technologies. Q: What is Superior Hulls Inc.? A: Superior Hulls Inc. (Canada/Israel) is the corporation that sponsors this site. It describes its work as a new science of controlled collision between solid bodies and fluid bodies, using injected air under hulls for economy, performance, comfort, safety and speed, and it is seeking a wise major maritime partner. Q: Why shouldn't a maritime inventor go to market alone? A: Shipbuilding is capital-intensive, conservative and dominated by large shipyards, owners and classification bodies. A major partner can provide test vessels, engineering validation, class approval, manufacturing and credibility with buyers that an independent inventor would struggle to obtain alone. --- # Licensing vs. Joint Venture vs. Assignment: Choosing the Right Deal Structure for Your Invention URL: https://prepatent.org/licensing-vs-joint-venture-vs-assignment/ Published: 2025-06-18 Every invention that reaches the market travels on a legal vehicle. Some inventors rent their rights out through a license, some build a shared company with a partner, and some sell the whole thing outright. The vehicle you choose decides who controls the product, who carries the risk, how and when you are paid, and whether you still have a seat at the table five years from now. Choosing well is one of the most important business decisions an inventor will ever make, and it is best made before the first serious conversation with a potential partner. ### Key points - The three main structures are licensing (you keep ownership and grant permission to use), joint venture (you and a partner build something together) and assignment (you transfer ownership). - Licenses can be exclusive, sole or non-exclusive, and can be limited by field of use, territory and time. - Payment terms usually combine upfront fees, running royalties, milestone payments and annual minimums. - A joint venture shares upside and control, but also cost, risk and governance work. - An assignment is the cleanest exit, but it usually ends your influence over the invention. - Under the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach, the right structure is chosen to fit the industry and the partner, not the other way around. ## Why the deal structure matters as much as the patent A patent is a right to exclude others. On its own it produces no revenue; it creates leverage. The deal structure is the mechanism that converts that leverage into income, market presence and, ideally, a lasting relationship with a company that can manufacture, distribute and defend the product. Two inventors with equally strong patents can end up in very different places simply because one negotiated a well-designed exclusive license with performance obligations, while the other signed away all rights for a modest lump sum. As we explain in our Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy guide, the business strategy should be set realistically for the industry before the inventor goes to market. Deal structure is the heart of that strategy. Industries with a few dominant players, long sales cycles and heavy regulation tend to reward partnership structures. Fragmented markets with many potential buyers can support non-exclusive licensing to several companies at once. ## Option 1: Licensing A license is permission. The inventor (the licensor) keeps ownership of the patent or application and grants another party (the licensee) the right to make, use, sell or import the invention under agreed conditions. Licensing is the most common way independent inventors and universities commercialize technology, because it lets the owner benefit from a partner's manufacturing and sales capacity without giving up title. ### Exclusive, sole and non-exclusive licenses - Exclusive license: one licensee receives the rights within the defined scope, typically to the exclusion of everyone else, including the patent owner. Licensees pay more for exclusivity because it protects their investment in tooling, marketing and regulatory approvals. - Sole license: one licensee, but the owner keeps the right to practice the invention too. This is a middle ground that is less common but useful when the inventor runs a small operation of their own. - Non-exclusive license: the owner can license the same rights to many parties. Each deal is usually smaller, but the inventor can build a portfolio of revenue streams and is not dependent on one company's performance. ### Field-of-use and territorial limits A single invention often has applications in several industries. An air-injection technique might be relevant to commercial shipping, recreational boats and naval craft; a sensor might serve automotive, medical and consumer markets. A field-of-use license grants rights only within one defined application, leaving the owner free to license other fields to other partners. Territorial limits work the same way geographically, for example North America to one licensee and Europe to another. Careful slicing can multiply the value of a single patent family, but the boundaries must be drafted precisely to avoid disputes when a product straddles two fields. ### How licensing money is structured License economics are rarely a single number. Most agreements combine several of the following elements: - Upfront fee (license issue fee): paid on signing. It compensates the owner for the opportunity cost of committing the rights and signals the licensee's seriousness. - Running royalty: a percentage of net sales or a fixed amount per unit. The definition of "net sales" (what deductions are allowed) is often more important than the percentage itself. - Milestone payments: paid when defined events occur, such as completion of a prototype, regulatory approval or the first commercial sale. - Minimum annual royalties: a floor the licensee must pay regardless of sales. In an exclusive deal, minimums are the inventor's main protection against a licensee that shelves the technology. - Sublicensing share: a percentage of any income the licensee earns by sublicensing to others. Inventors sometimes hear of a "25 percent rule" of thumb for splitting expected profits. Treat it with caution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected it as a basis for calculating patent damages in Uniloc v. Microsoft (2011), and real-world royalty rates vary widely by industry, margin and stage of development. A royalty negotiated for a proven, market-ready product will look very different from one for an early concept. Watch the term. In the United States, royalties charged for use of a patent after it expires are unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys (1964), a rule the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Kimble v. Marvel (2015). Patents generally last 20 years from the filing date. If your deal also covers know-how or trade secrets, have a registered patent attorney structure the payments so each element is properly supported. ### Pros and cons of licensing Licensing preserves ownership, can generate income across many years, and allows the inventor to stay involved as a technical advisor. Its weaknesses are dependence on the licensee's commitment and competence, the need to audit royalty reports, and the risk that an exclusive licensee simply sits on the technology. Strong diligence clauses, minimums and termination rights are essential protections. ## Option 2: Joint venture A joint venture (JV) is a collaboration in which two or more parties pool resources toward a shared commercial goal and share the results. For an inventor, the typical contribution is intellectual property, know-how and sweat equity; the partner contributes capital, manufacturing, distribution, regulatory experience and brand. ### Contractual versus equity joint ventures A contractual JV (sometimes called a strategic alliance) is governed entirely by an agreement. The parties remain separate and divide responsibilities and revenues according to the contract. It is quicker to set up and easier to unwind. An equity JV creates a new legal entity, usually a corporation or limited liability company, owned by the partners in agreed proportions. The inventor may assign or exclusively license the patent to the new entity in exchange for shares. Equity JVs suit long-term, capital-intensive projects where both parties want a dedicated team and a clear vehicle for future investment. ### What must be negotiated - Contributions and valuation: how much is the IP worth relative to cash and in-kind contributions? Our article on sweat equity and inventor valuation covers how to argue for fair credit. - Governance: board seats, voting thresholds and which decisions require unanimous consent. - Ownership of improvements: who owns new inventions developed inside the JV. - Funding obligations: what happens if one partner cannot or will not fund the next stage. - Deadlock and exit: buy-sell clauses, rights of first refusal and what happens to the IP if the venture ends. ### Pros and cons of a joint venture A JV keeps the inventor inside the business and aligns a major partner's resources with the invention's success. The upside can be larger than a royalty stream because the inventor shares in profits and enterprise value. The downside is complexity: governance disputes, dilution in later funding rounds, and the risk that a much larger partner dominates decisions. A JV with a misaligned partner can be worse than no deal at all. ## Option 3: Assignment An assignment transfers ownership of the patent or application. The buyer becomes the owner and can enforce, license or abandon the rights as it chooses. In the United States, 35 U.S.C. 261 requires assignments to be in writing, and recording the assignment with the USPTO within three months protects the buyer against subsequent purchasers. Other jurisdictions, including Canada and Israel, have their own registration procedures. Payment for an assignment may be a lump sum, installments, or a lump sum plus an "earn-out" tied to future sales. Earn-outs blur the line between assignment and license, and they require the same attention to reporting and audit rights. ### Pros and cons of assignment Assignment offers certainty, immediate liquidity and freedom from ongoing administration and enforcement costs. It is often the right choice for an inventor who wants to move on, who lacks resources to defend the patent, or who has received an offer that fairly reflects the invention's value. The drawbacks are just as clear: once the rights are sold, the inventor typically loses control over whether and how the invention reaches the market, and any later success belongs to the buyer. A buyer that acquires a patent to keep a competing technology off the market is a real possibility, which is why an inventor who cares about seeing the product used should think twice before a pure sale. A good deal structure aligns the inventor's goals with the partner's market power. ## Side-by-side comparison | | Factor | Exclusive license | Non-exclusive license | Joint venture | Assignment | Who owns the patent | Inventor | Inventor | Inventor or the JV entity | Buyer | Inventor control over the product | Moderate (through contract terms) | Low per licensee | Shared (through governance) | Little or none | Typical payment | Upfront fee, royalties, minimums, milestones | Smaller fees and royalties from several licensees | Share of profits and enterprise value | Lump sum, installments or earn-out | Inventor's ongoing cost and work | Monitoring and audits | Monitoring many deals | High: management and funding | Low | Main risk | Licensee shelves the technology | Weak enforcement, price competition | Deadlock, dilution, partner dominance | Underpricing; loss of future upside | Best fit | Concentrated industries with one ideal partner | Fragmented markets, broad applications | Capital-intensive projects needing the inventor's leadership | Inventor wants a clean exit ## Which structure fits the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach? The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering philosophy starts from a simple observation: most independent inventors cannot fund manufacturing, global distribution and patent enforcement on their own, and the industries they want to enter are often dominated by a handful of large companies. Rather than polishing a startup to be attractive for a takeover, the inventor's company searches for a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner as the project becomes ready for market. Our guide on how to find the right major partner explains the search itself. In practice, that approach points most often toward two structures: - An exclusive field-of-use license with a committed partner, backed by meaningful minimums, development milestones and termination rights. This keeps ownership with the inventor while giving the partner enough exclusivity to justify investment. - A structured joint venture where the inventor's continued technical leadership is genuinely valuable, for example when the technology is complex and will need several generations of improvement. Assignment remains a legitimate option, particularly when an inventor is confident the price is fair and has no wish to stay involved. Non-exclusive licensing fits inventions with broad, cross-industry uses. The point is not that one structure is always best, but that the structure should be chosen deliberately, with the industry's realities in mind, rather than accepted by default from whichever party makes the first offer. Our comparison of startup exits and pre-partnering explores the trade-offs in more depth. Takeaway: Decide which structure you prefer, and which you would accept, before you negotiate. Knowing your walk-away terms for control, payment and involvement is what turns a negotiation from a sale into a partnership. ## A practical checklist before you sign - Confirm your rights: who are the inventors, and are there any prior assignments to employers or co-founders? - Define the scope precisely: patents, applications, continuations, improvements, know-how, field and territory. - Model the economics under realistic best, middle and worst-case sales. - Insist on performance obligations in any exclusive arrangement. - Secure reporting, audit and termination rights. - Clarify who prosecutes, maintains and enforces the patents, and who pays. - Address what happens if the partner is acquired by a competitor. - Have a registered patent attorney or agent and a business lawyer review the final agreement. This article is educational and is not legal advice. Every deal depends on its facts and the law of the jurisdictions involved, so consult qualified professionals before committing. Weighing a license, a joint venture or a sale? We help inventors and their companies think through deal structure before the first meeting with a potential partner. Contact us to start the conversation, or explore our services. ## FAQ Q: What is the difference between an exclusive and a non-exclusive license? A: An exclusive license gives one licensee the right to practice the invention within the agreed scope, often excluding even the patent owner. A non-exclusive license lets the owner grant the same rights to many licensees, which spreads risk but usually earns a lower royalty per deal. Q: Does a patent assignment have to be in writing? A: Yes. In the United States, 35 U.S.C. 261 requires assignments of patents and applications to be in writing, and recording the assignment with the USPTO within three months protects the buyer against later purchasers. Other countries have their own registration rules. Q: Can royalties continue after a patent expires? A: In the United States, the Supreme Court held in Brulotte v. Thys (1964), and reaffirmed in Kimble v. Marvel (2015), that charging royalties for use of a patent after it expires is unenforceable. Agreements that also cover know-how or trade secrets need careful drafting by a qualified attorney. Q: Is a joint venture better than a license for an independent inventor? A: Not automatically. A joint venture shares control and upside but also shares cost, risk and governance burdens. It tends to suit inventors who can contribute ongoing technical leadership and who have found a partner with complementary strengths. Q: Which deal structure fits the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach? A: Usually an exclusive field-of-use license or a structured joint venture with a committed major partner, because both keep the inventor involved and align the partner's market power with the invention's success. An outright assignment can make sense when the inventor wants a clean exit. --- # The America Invents Act and Independent Inventors: What Changed and What It Means for You URL: https://prepatent.org/america-invents-act-independent-inventors/ Published: 2025-03-11 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, signed into law on 16 September 2011, was the most significant change to the US patent system in decades. It changed who wins when two inventors claim the same invention, created a new tribunal to review issued patents, and introduced lower fees for the smallest applicants. For independent inventors, the law brought both new tools and new risks. This article explains what changed, presents the concerns of independent-inventor advocates alongside the arguments of the law's supporters, and draws out practical lessons for anyone with an invention today. ### Key points - The AIA moved the US from first-to-invent to first-inventor-to-file for applications with an effective filing date on or after 16 March 2013. - A one-year grace period for the inventor's own disclosures remains, but with important limits, and most foreign countries do not recognize it. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, operating since 16 September 2012, can cancel issued claims through inter partes review and post-grant review. - Micro entity status cut fees sharply for qualifying individuals and small applicants. - For independent inventors, the practical lessons are to file early, keep disclosures controlled and build commercial strength alongside patent strength. ## Why Congress passed the AIA By the 2000s, the US patent system faced mounting pressure. Since the 1980s, applications had grown rapidly, driven in part by computing, software and electronics, and the USPTO carried a large backlog. Critics in industry argued that too many weak patents were being granted and that challenging them in court was slow and costly. The United States was also the last major patent system using first-to-invent, which complicated international harmonization. After several years of debate, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, named for its sponsors, Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Lamar Smith. Its text is available through Congress.gov, and a summary appears on Wikipedia. ## What changed: the major provisions | | Provision | Before the AIA | After the AIA | Effective | Priority between rival inventors | First-to-invent, decided through interference proceedings | First-inventor-to-file, with derivation proceedings for stolen inventions | Applications with effective filing date on or after 16 March 2013 | Grace period | One year before filing for most disclosures, plus ability to "swear behind" some prior art | One year for inventor-originated disclosures, with narrower protection against intervening disclosures | 16 March 2013 | Post-grant challenges | Ex parte and inter partes reexamination | Inter partes review, post-grant review, and (until 2020) a transitional program for covered business method patents | 16 September 2012 | Appeals body | Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences | Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) | 16 September 2012 | Fees for smallest applicants | Small entity discount only | New micro entity category with deeper discounts | March 2013 | Prior user rights | Limited to business method patents | Expanded defense for earlier commercial use across technologies | Patents issued on or after 16 September 2011 The law also introduced supplemental examination, third-party preissuance submissions, prioritized examination (Track One), virtual patent marking, limits on joining unrelated defendants in a single infringement suit, and a rule that failure to disclose the "best mode" can no longer be used to invalidate an issued patent. ### First-inventor-to-file Under the old system, if two people independently invented the same thing, the one who could prove the earlier date of invention generally prevailed, even if they filed later. Under the AIA, the earlier effective filing date generally wins, subject to the grace period and to derivation proceedings for cases where one party took the invention from the other. The phrase "first-inventor-to-file" signals that the filer must still be an actual inventor; you cannot win by filing someone else's idea. ### Grace period nuances The AIA preserves a one-year grace period, but its details matter: - A disclosure made one year or less before your effective filing date by you, or by someone who obtained the subject matter from you, generally is not prior art against you. - If you publicly disclose first, a later disclosure by an unrelated third party of the same subject matter generally is not prior art against you either. However, this shield is interpreted narrowly; variations or improvements disclosed by others in the meantime may still count against you. - Third-party patent filings made before your filing date can be prior art even if you invented first, unless one of the exceptions applies. - Most other countries, including members of the European Patent Convention, generally require absolute novelty. A public disclosure before filing can destroy rights there even when the US grace period protects you at home. ### Post-grant proceedings and the PTAB The AIA replaced the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Beyond hearing appeals, the PTAB conducts trials in which third parties challenge issued claims: - Post-grant review (PGR) may be requested within nine months of grant for patents subject to first-inventor-to-file, on almost any ground of invalidity. - Inter partes review (IPR) may be requested after that window, but only on grounds of anticipation or obviousness based on prior patents and printed publications. Proceedings are decided by panels of administrative patent judges, generally within one year of institution. Challengers must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower burden than the "clear and convincing" standard needed to invalidate a patent in federal court. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of IPR in Oil States v. Greene's Energy (2018) and, in United States v. Arthrex (2021), required that the USPTO Director have the ability to review PTAB decisions. The procedures for deciding whether to institute reviews have continued to change, including significant shifts in 2025 toward Director-level institution decisions and broader discretionary denial. Check the current rules on the USPTO website before relying on any summary, including this one. The PTAB brought administrative trials over issued patents inside the USPTO, a change still debated by inventors and industry. ### Micro entity fees The AIA created a micro entity category for applicants who qualify as a small entity, have not been named on more than four previously filed nonprovisional applications (with some exceptions), and have gross income below a threshold set at three times the median household income, or who qualify through certain institutions of higher education. Micro entities initially received a 75 percent fee reduction; the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 increased the discount to 80 percent and the small entity discount to 60 percent on many fees. For an independent inventor, this can make filing and maintaining patents considerably more affordable. Certify eligibility carefully, because improper claims of status can cause serious problems. ### Prior user rights The AIA expanded a defense for companies that were commercially using an invention in the United States, in good faith, at least one year before the earlier of the patent's effective filing date or the patentee's own qualifying public disclosure. The defense lets the earlier user continue that use despite the later patent. It favors organizations that keep processes secret and use them commercially, and it is narrower than it may sound, but independent inventors should be aware that a patent may not stop every prior commercial user. ## What the AIA did not change Amid all the changes, several fundamentals stayed the same, and it helps to keep them in view: - A US utility patent still generally lasts 20 years from the filing date of the nonprovisional application, subject to adjustments and maintenance fees. - A US provisional application still secures a filing date for 12 months, and the Paris Convention still gives a 12-month priority period for foreign filings. - The core requirements of patentable subject matter, novelty, non-obviousness and adequate written description remain the tests an invention must pass. - Enforcing a patent against an infringer still happens in federal court or, for imports, before the International Trade Commission. The USPTO grants and reviews patents; it does not collect damages for you. In other words, the AIA changed the race and the referees more than the finish line. An inventor still needs a genuinely new, working invention, a well-drafted application and a realistic plan to bring it to market. ## The independent-inventor perspective Many independent inventors and their associations opposed key parts of the AIA, and this site shares a number of their concerns. The main arguments include: - A race to the patent office. First-inventor-to-file rewards those with the resources to file early and often. Large companies with in-house patent departments can file many applications quickly; an individual inventor working evenings may still be refining a prototype when a competitor files. - Uncertain patents. A patent that survived examination can be challenged again at the PTAB by a well-funded opponent, under a lower burden of proof than in court. Advocates argue this weakens the value of a patent as an asset that investors and partners can rely on. A former chief judge of the Federal Circuit was widely reported in 2013 to have likened PTAB panels to "death squads" for patent rights, a remark that critics still cite. - Cost of defense. Defending a patent through a PTAB trial requires specialized counsel. For an independent inventor, the expense can be prohibitive, and repeated petitions against the same patent compound the burden. - Loss of the swearing-behind tradition. Under first-to-invent, an inventor with good records could sometimes overcome prior art by proving an earlier invention date. That option is gone for post-AIA applications. - Distance from the original mandate. From this site's perspective, these changes, together with the growing workload since the 1980s and the market power of a few dominant technology firms, have moved the system away from the purpose expressed in the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474: rewarding inventors so that useful inventions are built and used. ## The counter-arguments Fairness requires presenting the case made by the AIA's supporters, which includes: - Interference proceedings rarely helped small inventors. They were expensive and complex, and supporters argue that independent inventors seldom benefited from them in practice. - Certainty of dates. A filing date is objective and easy to prove, which reduces disputes and cost. - A cheaper alternative to litigation. PTAB trials are typically faster and less costly than full patent litigation, and they can remove weak patents that might otherwise be asserted against small businesses as well as large ones. - International harmonization. Aligning with the rest of the world simplifies global filing strategy. - Help for small applicants. Micro entity fees, prioritized examination, the USPTO's pro bono programs and its Pro Se Assistance Center all arose from or expanded after the AIA. Reasonable people disagree, and the debate continues in Congress, the courts and the USPTO itself. We look at defensive tactics for patent owners in detail in PTAB defensive strategies for independent inventors. The practical bottom line: under the AIA, timing and commercial strength matter more than ever. An inventor who files early, controls disclosure and partners with a company able to stand behind the invention is far better placed than one who relies on the patent alone. ## Practical implications for independent inventors - File early. Consider a US provisional application as soon as the invention is reasonably described, then use its 12-month window to refine, test and approach partners. - Do not rely on the grace period. Treat it as a safety net, not a strategy, especially if foreign protection matters. - Keep records anyway. Dated notes no longer decide priority, but they support derivation claims, inventorship and partner due diligence. See protecting your idea before the patent. - Draft for resilience. Work with a registered patent attorney or agent on a careful prior art search and claims at several levels of breadth, which can help in any later PTAB challenge. - Check micro entity eligibility and use the fee savings to fund better drafting and searching. - Build commercial strength. A patent backed by a committed major partner is a less attractive target for challenge and a stronger asset in negotiations. Our Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering guide explains how. Educational content, not legal advice. The AIA's provisions are detailed, PTAB procedures change frequently, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Consult a registered patent attorney or agent about your own invention and filing strategy. ## Navigate the post-AIA system with a plan The America Invents Act did not end the opportunity for independent inventors, but it rewards those who plan ahead. If you would like to discuss how filing strategy and pre-partnering could strengthen your position, explore our services or contact us at owner@prepatent.org to arrange a first conversation. ## FAQ Q: When did the America Invents Act take effect? A: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was signed on 16 September 2011. Its provisions took effect in stages; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and new post-grant proceedings began on 16 September 2012, and first-inventor-to-file applies to applications with an effective filing date on or after 16 March 2013. Q: Does the US still have a grace period after the AIA? A: Yes. Disclosures by the inventor, or by others who obtained the subject matter from the inventor, made one year or less before the effective filing date generally are not prior art. The protection has limits, and most other countries do not offer a comparable grace period. Q: What is the PTAB? A: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is the administrative tribunal within the USPTO created by the AIA. It hears appeals from examiners and conducts trials such as inter partes review and post-grant review, in which third parties can challenge issued patent claims. Q: What is a micro entity? A: A micro entity is an applicant who qualifies as a small entity and meets additional limits on prior applications and gross income, or is affiliated with certain institutions of higher education. Micro entities pay significantly reduced USPTO fees, currently an 80 percent reduction on many fees. Q: Why do some independent inventors oppose the AIA? A: Critics argue that first-inventor-to-file rewards those who can file quickly and often, and that post-grant challenges at the PTAB make patents less certain and more expensive to defend. Supporters argue the changes improve patent quality, reduce litigation costs and align the US with other countries. --- # The Electric Car Paradox: What a 100-Year-Old Invention Teaches Today’s Inventors URL: https://prepatent.org/electric-car-paradox-innovation-lessons/ Published: 2025-01-22 Ask most people when the electric car was invented and they will name a company founded in the twenty-first century. The real answer is far older. Electric cars were rolling down city streets before the Wright brothers flew, and around 1900 they were among the most popular automobiles in America. Then, within a few decades, they nearly vanished, only to return a century later as the future of transportation. This is the electric car paradox, and it holds some of the most valuable lessons any inventor can learn. ### Key points - Electric vehicles existed more than 100 years ago and were popular in American cities around 1900. - They lost to internal combustion because of range, cheap oil, the electric starter, mass production and missing infrastructure, not because the idea was bad. - The modern revival depended on better batteries, policy, charging networks and companies with the scale to build and sell cars. - For inventors, the lesson is that timing, infrastructure, cost and market power can matter as much as the invention itself. - Choosing the right partner can supply what an invention lacks on its own. ## A brief history of the first electric age ### Early experiments The story begins with nineteenth-century tinkerers. In the first half of the 1800s, inventors in Britain, the Netherlands and the United States built crude electric carriages and models powered by non-rechargeable batteries. The U.S. Department of Energy credits Robert Anderson with one of the first crude electric carriages. These machines were curiosities rather than practical vehicles, because a battery that could not be recharged was an expensive way to travel a short distance. The breakthrough was the rechargeable battery. French physicist Gaston Planté invented the lead-acid battery in 1859, and Camille Faure significantly improved it in 1881, making it far more practical to manufacture and use. In 1881 Gustave Trouvé demonstrated an electric tricycle in Paris. Within a decade, electric road vehicles were being built in several countries. ### America's electric moment In the United States, William Morrison, a chemist from Des Moines, Iowa, is credited with one of the first successful electric cars, around 1890. It was essentially an electrified wagon that could carry several passengers, but it sparked public interest. Over the following years, electric taxicabs operated in New York, and manufacturers such as Baker and Detroit Electric built elegant city cars. In 1899, the Belgian driver Camille Jenatzy's electric car La Jamais Contente became the first road vehicle to exceed 100 kilometers per hour. Electric vehicles were not slow novelties; for a time they held the land speed record. By around 1900, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, electric cars accounted for about a third of the vehicles on American roads. Their advantages were obvious to city drivers. They were quiet, did not vibrate or smell, required no gear shifting, and started instantly. Gasoline cars of the era had to be cranked by hand, a strenuous and sometimes dangerous task, and steam cars could take a long time to build up pressure. Even Thomas Edison believed in the electric car. He spent years developing a nickel-iron battery intended for vehicles. The enthusiasm was real, the technology worked, and customers were buying. Thomas Edison spent years developing batteries intended for electric vehicles. ## Why electric cars lost the first round If electric cars were so attractive, why did they almost disappear by the 1930s? The answer is not a single failure but a convergence of forces, most of them outside the control of any individual inventor. ### 1. Range and charging Early batteries were heavy and stored relatively little energy. That was fine for trips around town, but America was building roads between cities. As the road network grew, drivers wanted to travel farther than a battery could take them, and recharging took hours. Refueling a gasoline car took minutes. ### 2. Infrastructure that did not exist Electricity itself was the problem. In the early twentieth century, much of rural America had no electrical service. A gasoline car could be refueled from a can carried in the back or bought at a general store. An electric car needed a grid. The infrastructure for electric vehicles lagged far behind the vehicles themselves. ### 3. Cheap oil Major oil discoveries, beginning with the Spindletop gusher in Texas in 1901 and followed by further Texas strikes, made gasoline abundant and inexpensive. The Department of Energy notes that Texas crude made gasoline cheap and widely available, including for rural Americans. When fuel is cheap and everywhere, the efficiency of the electric motor matters less to the buyer. ### 4. Mass production and price Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908, and his moving assembly line steadily drove its price down. The Department of Energy reports that by 1912 a gasoline car cost about $650, while an electric roadster sold for about $1,750. For most families, that difference settled the question. ### 5. The electric starter Perhaps the cruelest irony is that electricity helped kill the electric car. In 1912 Charles Kettering's electric self-starter appeared on Cadillac automobiles, eliminating the hand crank. One of the electric car's strongest selling points, easy starting, was now available on gasoline cars too. ### 6. Market power and momentum Once gasoline cars became dominant, a self-reinforcing system grew around them: filling stations, oil companies, repair shops, parts suppliers and road-building programs. Each new gasoline car made the next one more convenient to own. Electric vehicles, by contrast, became a shrinking niche. By the mid-1930s, according to the Department of Energy, they had all but disappeared from American roads. | | Factor | Electric car around 1900–1915 | Gasoline car around 1900–1915 | Starting | Instant, no crank | Hand crank until the 1912 electric starter | Noise and odor | Quiet and clean | Loud, vibrating, exhaust fumes | Range | Suited to city trips | Longer trips between towns | Refueling | Hours of charging; needed grid access | Minutes; fuel could be carried | Price | Higher (about $1,750 for a roadster in 1912, per DOE) | Falling fast (about $650 by 1912, per DOE) | Supporting system | Limited to electrified cities | Rapidly growing oil and service network ## The modern return Electric vehicles never died entirely; they survived in niches such as delivery vehicles, forklifts and golf carts. Interest revived during the oil shocks of the 1970s and grew again in the 1990s, partly in response to clean-air regulation. General Motors leased the EV1 in the late 1990s, and Toyota launched the Prius, the first mass-produced hybrid, in Japan in 1997 and worldwide in 2000. The decisive change was the battery. Lithium-ion cells, commercialized for consumer electronics in the early 1990s, became steadily cheaper and more energy-dense as production scaled up for laptops and phones. That gave carmakers a power source that could deliver acceptable range. Tesla's Roadster arrived in 2008, and the Nissan LEAF and Chevrolet Volt reached American buyers in late 2010. Charging networks, government incentives and emissions rules followed, and the market began to grow quickly. The electric motor had not changed in its fundamentals. What changed was everything around it: battery chemistry, manufacturing scale, charging infrastructure, public policy, fuel-price concerns and consumer attitudes. The idea that lost in 1915 won in the 2010s because the ecosystem finally caught up. The paradox in one sentence: The electric car did not fail because it was a poor invention; it failed because its supporting system, its cost structure and its market timing were wrong, and it returned when those conditions changed. ## Lessons for today's inventors ### Lesson 1: Timing is a strategic variable, not luck An invention can be right too early. Before you commit everything to launch, ask whether the components, materials, regulations and customer habits your product depends on are ready. If they are not, the right strategy may be to protect the invention, keep developing it and look for a partner who can wait for or create the right moment. Remember that a patent generally lasts 20 years from filing, so the clock starts running whether or not the market is ready. Our guide to why most patents fail commercially looks at this risk in detail. ### Lesson 2: Infrastructure decides adoption Many inventions need something else to exist first: a charging network, a software platform, a certification standard, a trained workforce. If your product depends on infrastructure you cannot build, your realistic path to market probably runs through a company or industry that already controls that infrastructure. ### Lesson 3: Cost and manufacturing scale beat elegance The early electric car was in many ways the more refined product. It lost on price, because Ford mastered production at scale. Inventors should think about manufacturability early, ideally while moving from idea to prototype, and should recognize that scale usually belongs to established manufacturers. ### Lesson 4: Incumbents adapt The electric starter shows how an incumbent technology can absorb a rival's best feature. Expect established players to respond to your innovation, sometimes by improving their own products, sometimes by acquiring or sidelining the challenger. A defensible patent position and a well-chosen ally reduce that risk. ### Lesson 5: Consumer choice follows convenience Buyers did not reject the electric car on principle; they chose what was cheaper and more convenient for the trips they wanted to take. Understand the whole customer experience, including fueling, maintenance, resale and service, not just the product's technical merits. ### Lesson 6: Market power is real, so partner with it The gasoline car's victory was reinforced by oil companies, road builders and manufacturers whose interests were aligned. An independent inventor rarely has that kind of power. This is the central insight behind the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering strategy: rather than entering a market dominated by entrenched systems alone, the inventor's company seeks a suitable, committed major partner whose resources and infrastructure can carry the invention to customers. ## What the early pioneers could not control It is tempting to judge the early electric car makers harshly, but most of the forces that defeated them were beyond any single company's reach. No battery maker of 1910 could electrify rural America, lower the price of crude oil or match the purchasing power behind Ford's assembly line. What the pioneers could influence was narrower: which customers they targeted, which allies they cultivated and how they used the years in which their technology was protected and in demand. Some electric makers did find a profitable niche, selling to wealthy urban buyers who valued quiet and cleanliness, and commercial fleets of electric delivery trucks operated in some cities for years. But a niche without a growing supporting system tends to shrink. The same pattern appears in many industries today: a technically superior product holds a loyal corner of the market while the mainstream organizes itself around a rival. The question for a modern inventor is whether there is a partner whose own interests are served by building the supporting system your invention needs. ## A readiness checklist inspired by the electric car - What enabling technologies does my invention depend on, and are they mature and affordable? - What infrastructure must exist for customers to use it, and who controls that infrastructure? - How will my cost compare with the incumbent once the incumbent responds? - Who can manufacture at scale, and on what terms? - Which established companies benefit if my invention succeeds, and which lose? - If the market is not ready, how will I protect and sustain the invention until it is? You can test your answers with our invention readiness check. ## Conclusion The electric car paradox reminds us that history does not always reward the best idea first. It rewards the idea that arrives with the right infrastructure, the right cost, the right partners and the right timing. Inventors who study the century-long journey of the electric car can avoid repeating its first defeat, and position their own inventions for the kind of comeback that eventually came. Is your invention ahead of its market? We help inventors assess timing, infrastructure and partnering options before going to market. Contact us by email to start a confidential conversation. ## FAQ Q: When was the electric car invented? A: Crude electric carriages were built in the first half of the 1800s, and practical electric cars appeared in the late 1800s after rechargeable lead-acid batteries were developed and improved. In the United States, William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa, is credited with an early successful electric vehicle around 1890. Q: How popular were electric cars around 1900? A: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, electric vehicles accounted for around a third of vehicles on American roads at their peak around the turn of the twentieth century. They were popular in cities because they were quiet, clean and easy to start. Q: Why did early electric cars lose to gasoline cars? A: Several forces combined: limited range and slow charging, a lack of electricity outside cities, falling gasoline prices after major oil discoveries, Ford's mass-produced Model T, and the electric self-starter introduced in 1912, which removed the gasoline car's hand-crank disadvantage. Q: What brought electric cars back? A: Better batteries (especially lithium-ion, commercialized in the early 1990s), concern about emissions and fuel security, government policy, and new companies willing to build desirable vehicles. Hybrids such as the Toyota Prius (1997 in Japan) and modern battery-electric cars from around 2008 onward revived the market. Q: What is the main lesson of the electric car paradox for inventors? A: A good invention is not enough. Timing, supporting infrastructure, cost, manufacturing scale and the market power of incumbents can decide the outcome, so inventors should build a realistic market strategy and look for partners who can supply what the invention lacks. --- # Startup-to-Exit vs. Pre-Partnering: Which Path Captures More Value for Inventors? URL: https://prepatent.org/startup-exit-vs-pre-partnering/ Published: 2025-01-14 If you ask how to commercialize an invention, you will most often hear one answer: start a company, raise venture capital, grow fast and sell to a big player. That startup-to-exit model has produced remarkable successes, and it is the right choice for some inventors. But it is not the only route, and for many inventors in concentrated, capital-intensive industries, it may not be the route that captures the most value for the person who actually created the invention. This article compares startup-to-exit with the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach, factor by factor. ### Key points - Startup-to-exit builds a company to be sold or listed; pre-partnering builds a company to commercialize with a committed major partner. - Startup-to-exit usually requires repeated equity raises, which dilute founders and shift control to investors. - Pre-partnering uses the partner's existing manufacturing, distribution and credibility, which can lower capital needs and time to market. - The best choice depends on the industry structure, capital intensity, piracy risk and the inventor's own goals. - The two paths are not mutually exclusive; a proven partnership can strengthen any later sale. ## Two paths defined ### Startup-to-exit In the classic model, founders form a company and raise money in stages: personal savings and friends and family, then angel investors, then one or more venture capital rounds. Each round funds a phase of growth, such as product development, first customers, scaling, and international expansion. The goal is a liquidity event, most often an acquisition by a larger company and less often an initial public offering. Founders and investors are paid at the exit, according to their share of equity and the investors' negotiated preferences. The model's logic is that a small, focused team can move faster than an incumbent, prove a market, and then be acquired by a company that can scale the product. In practice, the company must make itself attractive to a specific kind of buyer, frequently a dominant firm in the sector. ### Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering In the pre-partnering model, the inventor's company sets a realistic business strategy for its industry before going to market. It develops the invention to a working, documented, protected state and then seeks a suitable, intrigued, committed major partner to commercialize it together. The partner brings scale; the inventor's company brings technology, know-how and the patent rights. The relationship might be a license with performance terms, a joint development agreement or a joint venture. The inventor's company remains a continuing participant rather than an asset to be sold. Our step-by-step pre-partnering guide covers the process in detail. ## Side-by-side comparison The table below summarizes the typical differences. Real situations vary, and many ventures blend elements of both. | | Factor | Startup-to-exit | Pre-partnering | Capital required by the inventor's company | High; must fund product development, manufacturing, sales and marketing until exit | Lower; partner typically funds scale manufacturing and market entry | Main sources of funding | Successive equity rounds from angels and venture capital | Founder funds, grants and modest investment to reach readiness; partner payments and commitments afterward | Founder dilution | Often substantial after several rounds | Typically less, because fewer equity rounds are needed | Control | Shifts toward investors through board seats and protective provisions | Founders keep control of their company; partner controls its own operations within agreed terms | Execution risk | Borne largely by the startup: hiring, building factories or supply chains, winning customers | Shared; partner carries much of the manufacturing and sales risk | Market access | Must be built from scratch against incumbents | Uses the partner's existing channels, customers and certifications | IP piracy and infringement exposure | High in concentrated industries; a small company may struggle to enforce patents against large players | Reduced when the partner has an interest in defending the shared market | Timeline to meaningful revenue | Often long; depends on building the full business | Can be shorter once a partner commits, though partner decision cycles can be slow | How the inventor is paid | Mostly at exit, if one happens | Ongoing royalties, profit share or joint venture returns, sometimes with upfront payments | Who captures most of the long-term value | Frequently the acquirer, which benefits from the invention for the remaining patent life and beyond | Shared between partner and inventor over the life of the commercial relationship | Main failure mode | Running out of money before product-market fit or exit | Choosing a partner that does not commit or shelves the invention Whether through an acquisition agreement or a partnership contract, the terms decide who captures the value of an invention. ## Cost and risk Building a company that can manufacture, certify, market and support a product is expensive, and the cost grows with the industry's capital intensity. A software tool can sometimes reach customers with a small team. A new hull design, medical device or vehicle component may require tooling, testing, regulatory approvals and a sales force before the first meaningful sale. In a startup-to-exit model, all of that is funded by the startup, usually through outside equity. Pre-partnering shifts much of that cost to an organization that already has the factories, the certifications and the customers. The inventor's company still needs to fund the work required to reach genuine readiness, including the prototype, testing and initial patent filings. But the largest expenses fall to the partner, which can absorb them as part of its normal business. The risk profile shifts accordingly. A startup that cannot raise its next round may fail outright, taking the founders' equity with it. A pre-partnering company that loses a partner still owns its invention and can approach the next candidate, provided its agreement included sensible reversion terms. ## Control and dilution Every equity round sells part of the company. Investors also negotiate rights that shape control, such as board representation, approval rights over major decisions, and liquidation preferences that determine who is paid first at an exit. By the time a startup reaches a sale, the founding inventor may hold a minority stake and may not control whether, when or to whom the company is sold. In some exits, preferences mean that founders receive little even when the headline price sounds large. In pre-partnering, the inventor shares value with the partner rather than with a series of investors. The terms of that sharing are negotiated directly and can be designed around performance: royalties tied to sales, milestones that trigger payments, and rights that revert if the partner does not commercialize. The inventor's company remains independent and can keep developing improvements and new applications. We discuss how to value the inventor's own contribution in sweat equity and inventor valuation. ## Timeline Startup-to-exit timelines are usually measured in many years: years to build the product and team, more years to reach meaningful revenue, and then a sale process that depends on market conditions and buyer appetite. Pre-partnering has its own delays, since large companies make decisions slowly, but once a committed partner is in place, the path to scale can be much shorter because the infrastructure already exists. Patent life adds pressure in both models. A US utility patent generally lasts 20 years from its filing date. Every year spent building infrastructure before sales is a year of protection consumed with little return. Using a partner's existing capacity can let an invention earn revenue during more of its protected life. ## Value captured by founders versus acquirers This is the heart of the comparison. In a startup-to-exit, the acquirer typically pays a price based on what the startup has proven so far, then captures the value the invention generates for the rest of its commercial life. The founders are paid once, and what they receive depends on dilution and investor preferences. From this site's perspective, the dominance of the startup-to-exit model in many sectors has encouraged inventors to build companies that are attractive to a small number of powerful acquirers, rather than companies that maximize the inventor's long-term share. That is a long way from the original purpose of patents expressed in the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474, which aimed to reward the inventor so that more useful inventions would be built for the common good. Pre-partnering aims to keep the inventor in the value stream for as long as the invention earns money, sharing growth with a partner that is motivated to sell. It does not guarantee a better outcome, and a weak agreement can leave an inventor worse off than a good acquisition would. But it changes the question from "who will buy us?" to "who will build this with us?" The key question: Are you building a company to be sold, or building a business to bring an invention to market? Both are legitimate. Just make sure you are choosing deliberately, with a clear view of who will capture the value your invention creates. ## A lesson from history Being first with an invention does not guarantee capturing its value. Electric cars, for example, were on the roads more than a hundred years ago, yet for most of the twentieth century the technology was sidelined while the industry built itself around the internal combustion engine. Whether an invention thrives depends heavily on who controls manufacturing, infrastructure and distribution, and on whether those players are motivated to adopt it. We explore that story in the electric car paradox. The lesson for today's inventors is the same under either model. A startup that cannot reach the market on its own will depend on incumbents eventually, whether as acquirers or as partners. Pre-partnering simply brings that reality forward, so the inventor can negotiate it on purpose rather than discover it under financial pressure. ## When each path makes sense ### Startup-to-exit may fit when - The market can be reached without going through a dominant incumbent. - Capital needs are moderate and a small team can deliver the product. - Network effects or speed matter more than manufacturing scale. - The founders want to build and lead an organization and accept dilution as the price of growth. - An exit is a goal in itself, for example because founders want liquidity within a defined period. ### Pre-partnering may fit when - A few major players control manufacturing, distribution, certification or customer access. - The product is capital-intensive or requires long approval cycles. - The risk of IP piracy or infringement by large players is significant, and enforcement alone would be unaffordable. - The inventor wants ongoing participation in the invention's success rather than a one-time payout. - A clear set of potential partners exists who are, or could become, intrigued, interested, committed and suitable. ### Going alone or with an investor There is a third option the site has always acknowledged: if you are confident in your market and not threatened by IP piracy or infringement, you may go to market alone or with a supportive investor, without aiming for an exit or a major partner. This is often the path for niche products with loyal customers and modest capital needs. ## A decision checklist - Map your industry and identify who controls the route to market. - Estimate the capital needed to reach first meaningful sales on your own. - Assess how easily a large competitor could copy or design around your invention. - Decide what you personally want: control, ongoing income, a one-time exit or a combination. - List potential partners and potential acquirers, and compare the realistic terms each might offer. - Test your conclusions with an experienced advisor and a registered patent attorney or agent. Many ventures combine elements of both. A company might raise modest investment to reach a working prototype, sign a partnership to reach the market, and later be acquired by that partner at a price that reflects proven commercial success rather than promise. Our guide to finding the right major partner helps with the partnership side of that equation. Educational content, not legal or financial advice. Investment, partnership and acquisition terms carry significant legal and tax consequences. Consult qualified legal, financial and patent professionals about your specific circumstances. ## Choose your path deliberately The default path is not always the best path. If you would like help weighing startup-to-exit against pre-partnering for your own invention and industry, explore our services or contact us at owner@prepatent.org to arrange a first conversation. ## FAQ Q: What is the startup-to-exit model? A: It is the path in which founders form a company, raise successive rounds of outside capital, grow the business, and aim to sell it to a larger company or take it public, realizing their value at that exit. Q: How is pre-partnering different from startup-to-exit? A: In pre-partnering, the inventor's company plans from the start to bring a suitable, committed major partner into commercialization, keeping an ongoing stake in the invention's success rather than building mainly to be acquired. Q: Does pre-partnering avoid dilution? A: It can reduce dilution because the partner funds much of the manufacturing and market entry instead of the inventor raising multiple equity rounds. The inventor still shares value with the partner through royalties, profit shares or joint venture terms. Q: When does startup-to-exit make more sense? A: It can fit when the market is reachable without a major incumbent, capital needs are moderate, the team can execute, and the founders are comfortable trading control and equity for speed and an eventual sale. Q: Can an inventor combine both approaches? A: Yes. Some companies raise modest investment to reach a working prototype and then pursue a major partner, or sign a partnership that later leads to an acquisition on better terms because the technology has been proven in the market. --- # How to Find the Right Major Partner for Your Invention URL: https://prepatent.org/how-to-find-the-right-major-partner/ Published: 2024-10-22 A great invention in the hands of the wrong partner can disappear into a drawer. The same invention in the hands of the right partner can reach customers around the world while the inventor shares in the success. Choosing that partner is one of the most consequential decisions an inventor makes, yet it is often left to chance, a cold email to the biggest name in the industry. This article sets out a deliberate method for finding, vetting and approaching a major partner, and for protecting yourself along the way. ### Key points - Judge every candidate on four qualities: intrigued, interested, committed and suitable. - Map the whole industry, including challengers and suppliers, not just the market leader. - Do your own due diligence on partners before they do theirs on you. - Recognize red flags early, such as refusal of any confidentiality or demands for full assignment up front. - Lead with a non-confidential summary, disclose in stages, and file before you share technical details. ## Why the partner decision matters so much In the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach, the inventor's company does not try to build a full manufacturing and distribution operation from scratch, nor does it build mainly to be acquired. Instead it seeks a major partner who brings scale, channels and credibility while the inventor's company keeps contributing technology and know-how. That model only works if the partner is genuinely motivated to commercialize. A partner that licenses an invention defensively, simply to keep it away from competitors, can leave the inventor with little or nothing. ## The four qualities of the right partner A useful test is to ask whether a candidate is intrigued, interested, committed and suitable. Each quality filters out a different kind of disappointment. | | Quality | What it means | How to recognize it | Intrigued | Technical people find the invention compelling | Engineers ask detailed follow-up questions and request data or a demonstration | Interested | The invention fits the company's strategy and markets | It addresses a problem the company has publicly prioritized or a market it is trying to grow | Committed | The company will assign budget, people and a champion | A named executive sponsor, a project plan, and willingness to accept milestones | Suitable | Capability, culture and reputation fit yours | Relevant manufacturing and sales reach, fair dealing history, decision speed compatible with your runway A company can be intrigued without being interested; engineers may love the technology while the business unit has other priorities. It can be interested without being committed; strategy documents may mention your market while no budget exists. Keep testing all four as discussions progress. ## Mapping the industry players Start with a map, not a target. Sketch the value chain from raw materials to end customer and place every significant company on it. For most inventions the map will include several groups: - Market leaders, the largest firms by share. They offer reach, but may be protective of existing products that your invention could displace. - Challengers, the second and third tier players who need differentiation to gain share. They often move faster and value a distinctive advantage. - Tier-one suppliers and component makers, who sell to the leaders and may adopt your invention as a feature for many customers at once. - Distributors and integrators, who control access to buyers in fragmented markets. - Adjacent-industry players, companies in neighboring sectors seeking entry into yours. - Large end users, such as fleet operators or utilities, who may sponsor development to solve their own problems. Public sources help you fill in the map: annual reports, trade association member lists, conference exhibitor lists, trade publications and patent databases. Searching the USPTO's free tools, the European Patent Office's Espacenet, or WIPO's PATENTSCOPE, accessible from the USPTO, EPO and WIPO sites, shows which companies are actively filing in your technology area and how their research focus is moving. Partner selection is a strategic decision: map the whole industry before choosing whom to approach. ## Due diligence on potential partners Inventors expect partners to scrutinize them. Fewer realize they should scrutinize partners just as carefully. Before investing months in a relationship, research each shortlisted company. ### Questions to answer about each candidate - Does it have a history of licensing, co-developing or acquiring outside technology? On what terms, as far as public information shows? - Has it been involved in disputes with independent inventors or small companies over IP? Court records and news coverage can be revealing, though a dispute alone does not prove bad faith. - What do its patent filings show? Heavy recent filing near your invention may indicate strong interest, or a risk of parallel development. - Is the relevant business unit growing, stable or being cut back? - Who makes decisions on new technology, and how long do those decisions usually take? - Does it have the manufacturing, certification and sales capacity to bring your product to market at scale? - What do suppliers, former employees or other inventors say about working with it? Record your findings in a simple scoring sheet against the four qualities. The exercise often moves a less obvious candidate to the top of the list. ## Red flags to watch for Proceed with caution if a prospective partner: - Refuses any form of confidentiality once discussions move beyond non-confidential material, yet asks for full technical detail. - Insists that you submit through a portal whose terms waive confidentiality and all claims, before you have filed. - Demands a full assignment of your rights early, with payment only on vague future success. - Will not accept performance milestones, minimum commitments or reversion of rights if it does not commercialize. - Repeatedly changes its contact person or cannot name an internal champion. - Requests long exclusivity periods for free "evaluation." - Pressures you to decide quickly without time for legal review. None of these automatically means bad faith. Large organizations have legitimate reasons for some of these policies, particularly around unsolicited ideas. But each one shifts risk to you, and the combination of several should make you pause. ## How to approach a major partner How you make contact shapes how you are perceived. A cold email to a general inbox is the weakest route. Better options include: - Warm introductions through industry associations, suppliers, consultants, university contacts or former employees. - Trade shows and conferences, attended rather than exhibited at before filing, where you can meet technical and business leaders informally. - Licensing and business development executives, whose job is to evaluate outside opportunities. - Open innovation or venture programs, after you have read and understood their submission terms. - Government and industry networks, such as innovation agencies and sector councils, which can broker introductions. Target the person who owns the problem your invention solves, usually a product line head, chief technology officer or strategy executive, rather than the most senior name you can find. A champion with authority and motivation is worth more than a polite acknowledgment from the top. ## Preparing your pitch materials Prepare your materials in layers, so each stage reveals only what is needed. | | Stage | Material | Confidential? | First contact | One- or two-page summary: problem, benefit, evidence, IP status, ask | No, written to be safely public | Initial meeting | Short presentation, demonstration video, headline test data | Usually no, or limited | Technical evaluation | Detailed data, prototype access, engineering drawings | Yes, under signed NDA, after filing | Business evaluation | Business case, cost model, market sizing, development plan | Yes, under NDA | Negotiation | Term sheet, IP portfolio documents, due-diligence files | Yes, with attorney involvement Above all, show evidence. Ideas are cheap; working prototypes and credible test data are what move a partner from intrigued to committed. If you are still at an earlier stage, our invention readiness check can help you decide whether it is time to approach anyone. ## Protecting yourself during talks Partner discussions are where many inventors lose control of their ideas. A few disciplined habits greatly reduce the risk. - File first. Have at least a provisional patent application on file before revealing how the invention works. A US provisional secures a filing date for 12 months. - Use a written NDA before technical disclosure, with a clear definition of confidential information, a defined purpose, a reasonable term and no implied license. - Disclose in stages. Share what is needed for each decision, and nothing more. - Keep a disclosure log recording what was shared, with whom, when and under which agreement. - Mark documents as confidential and number copies where practical. - Follow up meetings in writing, summarizing what was discussed and shown. - Keep improving and filing on improvements, so your company remains the source of the next advance. - Involve an attorney before any term sheet, option or exclusivity agreement. We go deeper on early-stage safeguards in protecting your idea before the patent, and on options if things go wrong in IP piracy and infringement defense for small companies. Remember: you are not asking a large company for a favor. You are offering a working advantage in a market it cares about. Approach as a prospective partner with evidence, protection and clear terms, and you will be treated more like one. ## Moving from interest to commitment Many promising discussions stall between enthusiasm and signature. The partner's engineers are intrigued, a manager is interested, and then months pass. A few practices help convert interest into commitment: - Propose a defined next step after every meeting, such as a joint test, a site visit or a short evaluation agreement with a clear end date. - Offer a paid evaluation or option rather than free exclusivity. A modest fee for a limited evaluation period signals seriousness on both sides. - Agree on success criteria for any trial in advance, so a good result leads naturally to negotiation rather than to another round of tests. - Keep other candidates warm. Unless you have been paid for exclusivity, continue conversations elsewhere. Genuine alternatives are the strongest negotiating position an inventor can have. - Prepare your preferred structure, whether a license, a joint development agreement or a joint venture, so you can respond quickly when the partner asks what you want. Our comparison of licensing, joint venture and assignment can help you decide. Time matters for another reason. If your first filing is a US provisional application, you have 12 months to file the nonprovisional and any international applications that claim its date. A committed partner may help fund those filings and guide country selection, but you cannot let negotiations run past the deadline. Plan your partner timeline backward from it. ## When the answer is no Rejection is normal, and the reasons are often internal: budget cycles, competing projects or a reorganization. Ask politely what would need to change for the company to reconsider, and whether it can suggest other organizations. Keep the relationship cordial, because circumstances change. Then move to the next candidate on your map. A well-built shortlist means no single refusal ends the project. ## Find a partner who wants your invention to succeed The right major partner shares your interest in getting the invention to market and rewards you fairly for it, in the spirit of the original patent bargain. If you would like guidance on mapping your industry, preparing pitch materials or approaching candidates, explore our services or contact us at owner@prepatent.org to start a conversation. ## FAQ Q: What makes a company the right partner for an invention? A: The right partner is intrigued by the technology, interested in the market it serves, able to commit real resources and an internal champion, and suitable in capability, culture and reputation. All four qualities matter; size alone is not enough. Q: Should I approach the biggest company in my industry first? A: Not necessarily. Market leaders may be protective of existing products, while ambitious challengers or specialized suppliers may value a differentiating invention more and commit faster. Build a shortlist across tiers. Q: Will large companies sign an NDA with an independent inventor? A: Some will and some will not, especially at first contact. Many have formal idea-submission policies that treat unsolicited ideas as non-confidential, which is why you should file a patent application before disclosing technical details. Q: What should my first contact with a potential partner include? A: A short, non-confidential summary describing the problem solved, the benefit to the partner's customers, and the evidence that the invention works, without revealing how it works. Q: How can I check a potential partner's track record? A: Review its patent filings in public databases, news and court records involving outside inventors, its licensing and acquisition history, and conversations with suppliers or other inventors who have worked with it. --- # Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering: A Complete Step-by-Step Strategy Guide for Inventors URL: https://prepatent.org/pre-patent-pre-partnering-strategy-guide/ Published: 2024-09-17 Most inventors are told to follow the same script: file a patent, raise money, build a startup, and hope a large company buys it. Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering offers a different path. It asks the inventor to set a realistic business strategy for the industry before going to market, to prepare the invention so it is genuinely ready, and then to bring on a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner who can carry it to scale. This guide walks through the full process, step by step. ### Key points - Start with the industry, not the patent: understand who controls manufacturing, distribution and customers. - Decide your business strategy before filing, because the strategy shapes what, where and when you file. - Document conception and keep the invention confidential until your filing and agreements are in place. - Approach partners only when the project is ready, with a working prototype and a clear business case. - Time patent filings with partner discussions so key deadlines, such as the 12-month provisional window, work for you. ## What Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering means The phrase sounds technical, but the idea is simple. "Pre-patent" means the strategic thinking happens before you commit heavily to patent spending. "Pre-partnering" means you plan, from the beginning, to work with a major industry partner rather than treating partners as an afterthought or as eventual acquirers. The approach grows out of the original purpose of patents. The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 rewarded inventors so that useful devices would be built and used for the benefit of the commonwealth. Pre-partnering tries to keep both halves of that bargain intact: the invention reaches the market, and the inventor shares fairly in the value it creates. It is not the only valid route. An inventor who is confident in the market and not threatened by IP piracy or infringement may go to market alone or with an investor. Our comparison of startup-to-exit versus pre-partnering explores when each path fits. ## The ten steps at a glance - Analyze the industry. - Set the business strategy before filing. - Create evidence of conception. - Protect confidentiality. - Reach genuine readiness. - Target potential partners. - Make the approach. - Negotiate the partnership. - Time your filing strategy with the partner. - Go to market together. ## Step 1: Analyze the industry Every industry has its own economics. Before thinking about claims or prototypes, map how value moves through your sector. Ask: - Who are the dominant manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and customers? - How long are product development and certification cycles? Maritime, medical and automotive products, for example, often face long approval timelines. - How capital-intensive is production? Could a small company realistically manufacture at scale? - How have incumbents historically treated outside inventions: licensing, acquisition, imitation or indifference? - How easy would your invention be to copy once it is visible in the market? The answers tell you whether a small company can win alone or whether the realistic route to market runs through a major player. In concentrated industries the second answer is common, and it is better to know it on day one than to discover it after spending your savings. ## Step 2: Set the business strategy before filing Patent strategy should follow business strategy, not the other way around. Your filing choices, including which countries, how broad the claims, and whether to file provisionally first, depend on who will make and sell the product and where. Decide early which of these models you are pursuing: | | Model | Who brings it to market | Best suited to | Go it alone | The inventor's company | Low capital needs, accessible customers, low copying risk | Inventor plus investor | The inventor's company, funded | Strong market confidence, scalable production, defensible IP | Pre-partnering | The inventor's company with a major partner | Concentrated industries, high capital needs, high piracy risk | Startup-to-exit | An acquirer, after a sale | Founders seeking an exit more than ongoing participation Write the chosen strategy down in a short business plan. It will evolve, but it will keep every later decision consistent. ## Step 3: Create evidence of conception Since the America Invents Act moved the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system for applications filed on or after 16 March 2013, dated notebooks no longer decide who gets the patent when two inventors compete. They still matter a great deal. Good records help prove that you are the true inventor, support a derivation claim if someone takes your idea and files first, clarify ownership among co-inventors, and reassure partners during due diligence. - Keep a bound, page-numbered notebook or a secure digital log with reliable timestamps. - Record sketches, calculations, test results and failures, with dates. - Have a trusted, technically competent witness who has signed a confidentiality agreement review and sign key entries. - Save design files, emails and prototype photos in an organized archive. We cover practical record-keeping and early protection in more depth in protecting your idea before the patent. ## Step 4: Protect confidentiality Public disclosure before filing can be fatal. The US offers a one-year grace period for the inventor's own disclosures, but many other jurisdictions, including Europe, generally require absolute novelty, meaning an earlier public disclosure can destroy your rights there. Treat the invention as confidential until a filing is on record and agreements are in place. - Use written non-disclosure agreements with collaborators, contractors, testers and prospective investors. - Share only what each person needs to know. - Avoid trade shows, crowdfunding pages, publications and social media until you have filed. - Mark confidential documents clearly and log who received what, and when. Watch out for "idea submission" portals. Many large companies accept outside ideas only on terms that state the submission is not confidential and that no relationship is created. Read those terms carefully, and do not submit anything you have not already protected by filing. ## Step 5: Reach genuine readiness Major partners rarely commit to a concept. Ideas are cheap; what has value is an idea developed into a working prototype with credible evidence behind it. Before approaching anyone, assemble: - A working prototype or proof-of-concept, with test data that shows performance against the current alternatives. - A clear statement of the problem solved and the economic benefit to the partner's customers. - A cost estimate for manufacturing at scale, even if approximate. - A summary of your IP position: filings, freedom-to-operate observations and any prior art you know about. - An honest list of remaining technical and regulatory risks. Our invention readiness check provides a structured way to assess where you stand before you spend a single meeting with a prospective partner. Be candid with yourself here: a partner's engineers will find the weaknesses quickly, and it is far better that you find them first. A working prototype turns a cheap idea into evidence that a major partner can evaluate. ## Step 6: Target potential partners Build a shortlist using four criteria: the partner should be intrigued by the technology, interested in the market it serves, able to become committed with resources and a champion, and suitable in culture, capability and reputation. Look beyond the obvious market leader; ambitious challengers and specialized suppliers can be better partners than the largest firm. Our guide on how to find the right major partner explains mapping and due diligence in detail. ## Step 7: Make the approach First contact should be non-confidential. Prepare a one- or two-page summary that describes the problem, the benefit and the evidence without revealing how the invention works. Aim it at a decision-maker with responsibility for the relevant product line or strategy, ideally through a warm introduction from an industry association, a supplier or a mutual contact. If interest is real, move to a signed non-disclosure agreement before sharing technical details, and disclose in stages. ## Step 8: Negotiate the partnership Partnership structures range from licenses to joint ventures to development agreements with options. Our article on licensing versus joint venture versus assignment compares them. Whatever the form, negotiate these points carefully: - Ownership of IP, including improvements made jointly or by the partner. - Field and territory, so you can work with others outside the partner's area. - Diligence obligations, such as milestones and minimum commitments, so the invention is not shelved. - Financial terms, including upfront payments, royalties, equity or profit share. - Who pays for and controls patent prosecution and enforcement. - Exit and reversion, so rights return to you if the partner does not perform. Engage an experienced licensing or IP attorney before signing anything binding. ## Step 9: Time your filing strategy with the partner Patent deadlines can either pressure you or work for you. A common sequence looks like this: - File a US provisional application before any non-confidential disclosure. It secures a filing date for 12 months at relatively low cost. - Use those 12 months to refine the invention, approach partners and test the market under NDA. - Before the 12 months end, file a nonprovisional application and, if international protection matters, a Patent Cooperation Treaty application or direct foreign filings claiming priority under the Paris Convention. A committed partner may fund or share these costs, and its markets can guide which countries to choose. - The PCT route generally gives you until about 30 months from the earliest priority date to enter national phases, buying more time to align country selection with the partner's plans. Remember that a US utility patent generally lasts 20 years from the nonprovisional filing date, so filing far earlier than necessary can consume protection before sales begin. Balance that against the risk that someone else files first. A registered patent attorney or agent should plan these dates with you. The core insight: in pre-partnering, the patent is a tool in a business plan, not the plan itself. File to protect the negotiation and the market you and your partner will actually serve. ## Step 10: Go to market together Signing is the beginning, not the end. Keep the partnership productive by agreeing on a joint launch plan, clear roles for engineering, manufacturing and sales, and regular review meetings tied to the milestones in your agreement. Continue improving the invention, and file on meaningful improvements so your company keeps contributing value. Track royalties and performance carefully, and keep your own records of every technical contribution. ## An illustration from the maritime sector Consider how these steps apply in a capital-intensive industry. This site's sponsoring corporation, Superior Hulls Inc. (Canada/Israel), works on maritime innovation built around injecting air beneath ship hulls to improve economy, performance, comfort, safety and speed. Shipbuilding is a textbook case for pre-partnering: hulls are built by a limited number of yards, vessels take years to design and certify, and a small company cannot realistically build fleets on its own. Rather than positioning itself for a takeover, the company's stated aim is to find a wise major maritime partner. The same industry analysis, readiness work and partner targeting described above apply directly. ## Common mistakes to avoid - Spending heavily on worldwide patents before you know who will commercialize the invention. - Pitching a concept without a prototype or data. - Disclosing details before filing or before an NDA is signed. - Approaching only the single largest company in the industry. - Accepting an assignment of all rights when a license with diligence terms would protect you better. - Letting the 12-month provisional deadline pass while negotiations drag on. Educational content, not legal advice. Patent deadlines and disclosure rules differ by country and change over time. Consult a registered patent attorney or agent for advice on your specific invention. ## Start your pre-partnering plan Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering rewards inventors who think like business strategists early. If you would like help evaluating your industry, readiness or partner options, review our services or contact us by email at owner@prepatent.org to arrange a first conversation. ## FAQ Q: What is Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering? A: It is a commercialization approach in which the inventor's company sets a realistic business strategy for its industry before going to market, then seeks a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready, rather than building a startup mainly to be acquired. Q: Should I file a patent application before talking to potential partners? A: In most cases it is wise to file at least a provisional application before any non-confidential disclosure, because public disclosure can destroy patent rights in many countries. A registered patent attorney or agent can advise on timing for your case. Q: How long does a US provisional application protect my filing date? A: A US provisional application establishes a filing date for 12 months. To keep that date, you must file a nonprovisional application, and usually any international applications, before the 12 months end. Q: Do I still need a lab notebook under first-inventor-to-file? A: Yes. Dated records no longer decide priority contests in the US, but they remain valuable evidence of inventorship, ownership, independent development and derivation, and they make your due-diligence package more credible to partners. Q: Is pre-partnering right for every invention? A: No. If you are confident in the market, have the resources, and are not threatened by IP piracy or infringement, going to market alone or with an investor can make sense. Pre-partnering is strongest when a major player controls the route to market. --- # The Venetian Patent Statute of 1474: The Original Patent Mandate and Why It Still Matters to Inventors URL: https://prepatent.org/venetian-patent-statute-1474/ Published: 2024-08-27 On 19 March 1474 the Senate of the Republic of Venice passed a short act that would echo for more than five centuries. It promised inventors something simple and powerful: if you bring a new, working device to Venice, the state will protect it from copying for ten years. That act, now known as the Venetian Patent Statute, is widely regarded as the first general patent law in history, and its purpose was refreshingly direct: reward the people who create useful things, so that the whole commonwealth grows richer. ### Key points - The Venetian Senate enacted the statute on 19 March 1474, granting ten years of exclusive rights for new and ingenious devices. - Protection required that the device be new to Venetian territory and "reduced to perfection" so it could actually be used and operated. - Infringers faced a fine of one hundred ducats and the destruction of the copied device; the state kept a right to use inventions for its own needs. - Its core ideas traveled through England's Statute of Monopolies (1624) into the US Constitution and the Patent Act of 1790. - The statute's original mandate, rewarding inventors in order to build economic growth, remains the best test of whether a commercialization strategy truly serves the inventor. ## Venice in 1474: why a merchant republic needed a patent law Fifteenth-century Venice was one of the great trading powers of Europe. Its wealth rested on shipping, glassmaking, textiles, printing and a constant flow of skilled craftsmen from across the Mediterranean. The Venetian Arsenal, the state shipyard, was among the largest industrial operations of its age. In such an economy, technical know-how was a competitive asset, and the Venetian government understood that talented people go where their work is respected and rewarded. Before 1474, European rulers occasionally granted individual privileges to inventors. A frequently cited example is the privilege that the city of Florence granted in 1421 to the architect Filippo Brunelleschi for a vessel designed to carry heavy marble on the river Arno. Venice itself had granted case-by-case privileges. What made 1474 different was that the Senate replaced discretionary favors with a general rule: any inventor who met the conditions could claim protection. That shift from royal grace to legal right is the seed of every modern patent system. ## What the statute actually said The act is short, roughly a single paragraph in the original Venetian dialect. In a widely cited English translation, the Senate explained its reasoning this way: "We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover ingenious devices; and in view of the grandeur and virtue of our City, more such men come to us every day from divers parts. Now, if provision were made for the works and devices discovered by such persons, so that others who may see them could not build them and take the inventor's honor away, more men would then apply their genius, would discover, and would build devices of great utility and benefit to our commonwealth." That preamble is the heart of the matter. The Senate did not justify patents as a natural property right or a reward for cleverness in the abstract. It justified them as economic policy: protect inventors, attract more of them, and the commonwealth benefits from "devices of great utility." ### The operative provisions The statute then set out a handful of practical rules. Read in plain English, they look remarkably modern: | | Provision of the 1474 act | What it meant | Modern equivalent | Applies to any "new and ingenious device" not previously made in Venetian territory | The invention had to be new, at least locally | Novelty requirement | Device must be "reduced to perfection so that it can be used and operated" | No protection for bare ideas; the invention had to work | Utility and enablement; reduction to practice | Inventor must give notice to the office of the Provveditori di Comun | Registration with a public magistracy | Filing an application with a patent office | Ten years of exclusivity in Venetian territory | No one may make a similar device without the inventor's consent and license | Limited patent term (today generally 20 years from filing) | Infringer pays 100 ducats and the copy is destroyed | Real, enforceable remedies before any Venetian magistrate | Damages and injunctions | Government may use the devices for its own needs, but only the inventor may operate them | The public interest was reserved | Government-use provisions Contemporary transcriptions record that the measure passed by a large majority of the Senate. There was no corps of examiners; registration was simple and disputes went to the magistrates. Yet the essential bargain was all there. ### Novelty and usefulness The statute protected devices that were new to Venice. That was a local standard of novelty: a craftsman who brought a technique from abroad could qualify, because Venice's goal was to import and grow productive capability. The usefulness requirement was implicit in the phrase "of great utility and benefit to our commonwealth" and explicit in the demand that the device be ready to use. ### The working requirement The phrase "reduced to perfection so that it can be used and operated" deserves attention. Venice was not interested in sketches or speculative claims. Protection began once the device worked. Over the following centuries, many European privilege systems went further and expected the patentee to actually practice the invention within the territory, sometimes within a set time, or risk losing the privilege. Venetian practice in individual grants often reflected the same expectation. The logic was consistent: the public gives a temporary monopoly in exchange for real, working industry at home. The Rialto in Venice, heart of the merchant republic whose Senate enacted the first general patent law in 1474. ## How the Venetian idea traveled Venetian craftsmen, especially glassmakers and engineers, carried knowledge and expectations across Europe, and rulers elsewhere adopted similar privileges to attract them. Over roughly three centuries the idea matured into national patent laws. The milestones below trace the line from Venice to the modern United States system. For a fuller visual summary, see our patent history timeline. ### England's Statute of Monopolies, 1624 By the early seventeenth century, English monarchs had badly abused the power to grant monopolies, handing exclusive rights over ordinary commodities to favored courtiers. Parliament responded with the Statute of Monopolies in 1624, which declared most monopolies void. Section 6, however, preserved an important exception: letters patent for up to fourteen years could still be granted to "the true and first inventor" of a "new manufacture," provided the grant was not "mischievous to the state" by raising prices at home or hurting trade. Notice the continuity with Venice. The statute limited the term, insisted on novelty, focused on manufacture (working industry), and made the public interest a condition. Fourteen years was understood as roughly two cycles of apprenticeship, long enough for an inventor to train others in the new art. ### The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 The framers of the US Constitution wrote the purpose of patents directly into the founding document. Congress was given the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Every element of the Venetian bargain is present: a public purpose (progress), a limited term, and an exclusive right for the inventor. You can read more about the clause on Wikipedia's page on the Copyright Clause, which covers both patents and copyrights. ### The Patent Act of 1790 Congress acted quickly. President George Washington signed the first US Patent Act on 10 April 1790. Applications were reviewed by a board consisting of the Secretary of State (Thomas Jefferson), the Secretary of War and the Attorney General, who could grant a patent for up to fourteen years if they found the invention "sufficiently useful and important." The first US patent was issued on 31 July 1790 to Samuel Hopkins for a process of making potash, an ingredient in fertilizer and soap. The 1790 act was soon replaced by a simpler registration system in 1793, and the Patent Act of 1836 restored examination and created a dedicated Patent Office. ### From national laws to a global system As trade globalized, so did patents. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) allowed inventors to claim the filing date of their first application when filing in other member countries within twelve months. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) created a single international application route administered through the World Intellectual Property Organization. Today, most patents last 20 years from filing, and agencies such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office handle enormous application volumes. | | Year | Milestone | Term of protection | 1474 | Venetian Patent Statute | 10 years | 1624 | Statute of Monopolies (England), Section 6 | Up to 14 years | 1787 | US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 | "Limited times" | 1790 | First US Patent Act | Up to 14 years | 1883 | Paris Convention | 12-month priority right | 1970 | Patent Cooperation Treaty | International filing route | Today | Most national systems | Generally 20 years from filing ## What has changed since Venice The modern patent system is vastly more complex than a one-paragraph act and a registration book. Some changes are clear improvements: published patents now teach the public in detail, examination filters out many weak claims, and international treaties make cross-border protection practical. Other changes, in our view, have pulled the system away from its original purpose. - Volume and complexity. Beginning in the 1980s, the rise of computing and software dramatically increased both the number of applications and the difficulty of examining them. Patent offices have struggled to keep up, and pendency and cost have grown accordingly. - Cost of enforcement. A Venetian inventor could bring a copier before a magistrate. A modern independent inventor facing a well-funded infringer may confront litigation costs that are simply out of reach. - Post-grant challenges. Since the America Invents Act, patents can be challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Supporters see this as quality control; many independent inventors see it as an added burden. We examine both sides in our article on the America Invents Act and independent inventors. - Concentration of market power. In many technology sectors a few dominant firms control distribution, standards and customer access. From this site's perspective, that concentration means a patent alone rarely guarantees that the inventor, rather than an acquirer, captures the value of an invention. The original mandate in one sentence: Venice granted inventors a temporary exclusive right so that more people would build working devices "of great utility and benefit to our commonwealth." The reward to the inventor and the growth of the economy were meant to go together, not to be traded against each other. ## Why the pure purpose matters for today's inventors It is easy to treat a patent as the finish line. The Venetian statute reminds us that it was never meant to be. The Senate protected devices that were already "reduced to perfection," and it did so because those devices were expected to be used, generating work, trade and taxes. A patent sitting in a drawer did nothing for Venice, and it does little for an inventor today. Commonly cited estimates suggest that only a small percentage of patents ever achieve meaningful commercial success; we discuss the reasons in why most patents fail commercially. Three lessons follow directly from the 1474 text: - Ideas are not enough. Venice protected working devices, not concepts. Ideas are cheap until they are developed into a prototype that proves the invention works. That is also what persuades investors and partners. - The goal is use, not merely ownership. The value of a patent is realized when the invention reaches the market at scale. Strategy should be designed around reaching that market, not just around obtaining the grant. - The inventor should share in the growth. The statute's logic collapses if inventors are routinely stripped of the value they create. When the dominant path to market leaves the inventor with a small fraction of the value, more people stop applying their genius, exactly as the Venetian Senate warned. ## From the 1474 mandate to Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering The Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach promoted on this site is, at its core, an attempt to restore the Venetian balance. Rather than building a startup primarily to become attractive for a takeover by a dominant firm, the inventor's company sets a realistic business strategy for its industry early, before going to market, and then seeks a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready. The partner brings manufacturing, distribution and market access; the inventor brings the working invention, the know-how and the protected rights. Both share in the growth. This idea grew out of years of volunteer advocacy by the site's founder, Amnon, a retired businessman and inventor who served as the first lobbyist for the regional inventors society in his Canadian province. In that role he met leaders from government, industry and education, including the USPTO, and prepared proposals such as the "Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post" and the "Super Economy" concept. The common thread is the Venetian one: a patent system works best when it rewards inventors in a way that also builds the wider economy. Of course, pre-partnering is not the only path. An inventor who is confident in the market and not threatened by IP piracy or infringement may go to market alone or with an investor. The point is to choose deliberately. Our step-by-step Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering guide walks through how to decide and how to prepare. Educational content, not legal advice. Patent rights, deadlines and disclosure rules vary by country and change over time. Before filing or disclosing an invention, consult a registered patent attorney or agent about your specific situation. ## Put the original mandate to work for your invention The Venetian Senate asked a practical question in 1474: how do we get more useful inventions built and used? Every inventor should ask the same question before spending heavily on patents. If you would like to talk through how the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach could apply to your invention, explore our services or contact us by email at owner@prepatent.org to arrange a first conversation. ## FAQ Q: What was the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474? A: It was an act passed by the Senate of the Republic of Venice on 19 March 1474 that gave inventors of new and ingenious devices ten years of exclusive rights in Venetian territory, provided they registered the device once it was ready to be used. It is widely regarded as the first general patent law. Q: How long did a Venetian patent last? A: The statute granted ten years of protection. During that period no one else in Venetian territory could make a similar device without the inventor's consent and license. Q: What happened to infringers under the 1474 statute? A: An inventor could bring an infringer before any Venetian magistrate. If infringement was proven, the infringer paid a fine of one hundred ducats and the copied device was destroyed. Q: How did the Venetian statute influence US patent law? A: Its core ideas of novelty, usefulness, limited-term exclusivity and public benefit traveled through European practice and England's Statute of Monopolies of 1624 into Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution and the Patent Act of 1790. Q: Why does the 1474 statute matter to inventors today? A: It states the original bargain plainly: society rewards inventors with a temporary exclusive right because their working inventions create economic benefit. That purpose is a useful compass for inventors deciding how to commercialize, including through pre-partnering with a major industry player. --- # Modern Wisdom! URL: https://prepatent.org/modern-wisdom/ Published: 2024-08-20 Welcome to wisdom not as well known in our time, but wisdom which had served consumers and developers of new discoveries and innovations. ## Old wisdom, modern practice The merchants and senators of Venice understood in 1474 that rewarding inventors grows the economy for everyone. That original patent mandate is the foundation of the modern wisdom we share here: set your business strategy first, then partner wisely with a major player who is genuinely interested and committed to your project. Start here: read the story of the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474, explore the interactive patent history timeline, and check your project with the Invention Readiness Check. Questions or valued input? Contact us — we answer individually. --- # Economy URL: https://prepatent.org/economy/ Published: 2024-08-20 It is wise to take new products and services to markets without disappointments or sorrow, by employing what we are sharing at this website and its related websites. ## Why this matters for the economy New discoveries and innovations are the engine of economic growth. When an invention reaches the market through the right partner, it creates products, jobs, tax revenue and better choices for consumers. When it stalls — because of poor strategy, a hostile market or a takeover that shelves it — everyone loses: the inventor, the investor, the industry and the public. That is why we focus on strategy before going to market: knowing the industry, preparing the project, and finding a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner. ## Where to start - Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering: a step-by-step strategy guide - The Super Economy: how patent policy shapes national economic growth - Why most patents fail commercially — and how to beat the odds Related websites: Wisdom for Government & Industries and Modern Old+New Wisdom for Investors & Inventors. --- # Frequently asked questions Q: What is Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering? A: It is a commercialization approach in which the inventor's company sets a realistic business strategy for its industry before going to market, and then seeks a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready, rather than building a startup mainly to be acquired. Q: How is pre-partnering different from the startup-to-exit model? A: Startup-to-exit aims to make a company attractive for a takeover, often after several funding rounds. Pre-partnering approaches major players as potential partners from the start and focuses on bringing the product to market together on fair terms, which can reduce capital needs and dilution. Q: Is pre-partnering right for every invention? A: No. If you are confident in your market, have the resources, and are not threatened by IP piracy or infringement, going to market alone or with an investor can make good sense. Pre-partnering is strongest when a few major companies control the route to market. Q: What makes a good major partner? A: A good major partner is suitable (it can manufacture, distribute and support the product), intrigued (the invention fits its strategy and solves a problem it cares about) and committed (it is willing to invest and share the results fairly). Q: Do I need a granted patent before talking to potential partners? A: Not necessarily. Many partnership discussions begin while an application is pending. What matters is that disclosures are planned, filings are made before public disclosure, and confidential details are shared only under an NDA. Ask your patent attorney or agent about timing. Q: What was the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474? A: Passed by the Venetian Senate on 19 March 1474, it is widely regarded as the first general patent law. It protected new and ingenious devices, once reduced to working practice, from copying for ten years, in exchange for bringing useful inventions to Venice. Q: What does first-inventor-to-file mean? A: Under the America Invents Act, the United States moved to a first-inventor-to-file system for applications with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. In general, the inventor who files first has priority, so early filing and careful disclosure timing are important. Q: What is a provisional patent application? A: A US provisional application establishes an early filing date at lower cost and is not examined. You must file a nonprovisional application, and usually any international applications, within 12 months to claim the provisional's filing date. Q: How long does a patent last? A: In the United States and most countries, a utility patent generally lasts up to 20 years from the filing date of the earliest nonprovisional application, subject to paying maintenance or renewal fees. Some adjustments and exceptions apply. Q: What is the PTAB and why does it matter to inventors? A: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a USPTO tribunal created by the America Invents Act. Since September 16, 2012, it has heard post-grant challenges such as inter partes review, which allow third parties to challenge issued patents. In our view, independent inventors should plan for this possibility when valuing and defending a patent. Q: Do you provide legal advice or file patent applications? A: No. Our services focus on strategy, industry analysis and partner preparation. We do not draft or file patent applications or give legal opinions. For those tasks, please work with a registered patent attorney or agent. Q: How do online consultations work? A: After you order or contact us, we email you to propose meeting times and, if needed, a short questionnaire. Meetings take place online and are coordinated in Israel time, with slots that can suit North America, Europe and elsewhere. Q: How do I receive digital products? A: After purchase, you receive a download link for the guidebook or template kit. The templates are educational and should be reviewed by a qualified attorney before use. Q: Can you guarantee a partnership, investment or patent grant? A: No. No one can honestly guarantee those outcomes, because they depend on patent offices, companies, investors and markets. Our aim is to help you prepare well and make informed decisions. Q: Can I describe my invention in the contact form? A: Please describe it only in general, non-confidential terms. Do not send technical details, drawings or unpublished application text before a non-disclosure agreement is in place. Q: Will you sign an NDA? A: Yes, where a confidential discussion is needed for the service you have requested, we agree on an appropriate non-disclosure agreement before you share confidential information. Q: How do you use the information I send? A: We use it only to respond to you and to deliver the service you requested. You decide what is shared with any potential partner and when. See our privacy policy for details. --- # Glossary - America Invents Act (AIA): The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, signed on September 16, 2011, was a major reform of US patent law. It introduced first-inventor-to-file and created new post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. - Assignment: The transfer of ownership of a patent or patent application from one party to another. After an assignment, the new owner holds the rights, and assignments are normally recorded with the patent office. - Bayh-Dole Act: A 1980 US law that allows universities, nonprofits and small businesses to retain title to inventions made with federal research funding, encouraging their licensing and commercialization. - Claim: The numbered sentences at the end of a patent that define the legal boundaries of the invention. Infringement is judged against the claims, not the drawings or description alone. - Commercialization: The process of turning an invention into a product or service that is made, sold and used in the market, whether by the inventor, an investor-backed company or a partner. - Confidential disclosure: Sharing invention details with another party under an obligation of confidentiality, usually an NDA. A confidential disclosure is generally not a public disclosure for patent purposes. - Continuation application: A later application that claims the benefit of an earlier pending application's filing date and uses the same disclosure, often to pursue additional or different claims. - Derivation proceeding: A USPTO proceeding created by the America Invents Act to determine whether an applicant derived the claimed invention from another inventor and filed without authorization. - Design patent: A patent that protects the ornamental appearance of a manufactured article rather than how it works. In the US, design patents filed on or after May 13, 2015 last 15 years from grant. - Due diligence: The investigation a partner, investor or buyer carries out before a deal, reviewing the invention, its ownership, patent status, risks and business case. - Exclusive license: A license under which only the licensee may use the licensed rights, usually within a defined field or territory, sometimes excluding even the patent owner. - Field of use: A limitation in a license that restricts the licensee to a particular application, product type or market, allowing the owner to license other fields to other partners. - First-inventor-to-file: The priority system adopted by the United States for applications with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, under which priority generally goes to the inventor who files first. - Freedom to operate (FTO): An assessment of whether making, using or selling a product would infringe someone else's valid patent rights in a given country. FTO opinions are prepared by patent attorneys. - Grace period: A limited period during which an inventor's own public disclosure does not destroy patentability. The US allows one year for certain disclosures by the inventor, while many countries allow little or none. - Infringement: Making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing a patented invention without permission during the patent's term in a country where it is in force. - Intellectual property (IP): Legal rights in creations of the mind, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs and trade secrets. - Inter partes review (IPR): A PTAB trial in which a third party can challenge the validity of issued US patent claims on grounds of novelty or obviousness, based on prior patents and printed publications. - Joint venture: An arrangement in which two or more parties combine resources, often in a new jointly owned entity, to develop and commercialize an invention while sharing control, costs and profits. - Letter of intent: A preliminary document outlining the intended terms of a deal before a definitive agreement. Like a term sheet, it is usually mostly non-binding. - Licensing: Granting another party permission to use patent rights under agreed terms, typically in exchange for fees or royalties, while the owner keeps ownership. - Maintenance fees: Fees that must be paid periodically to keep a patent in force. In the US, utility patent maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after grant. - Major Partner: In the Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering approach, an established company that is suitable, intrigued and committed to bringing an invention to market together with the inventor's company on fair terms. - Milestone payment: A payment due when a defined goal is reached, such as completing a prototype, receiving regulatory approval or reaching first sales. Common in licenses and partnership deals. - Non-disclosure agreement (NDA): A contract in which one or both parties agree to keep shared information confidential and use it only for an agreed purpose. NDAs are essential before discussing unpublished invention details. - Nonobviousness: The requirement that an invention would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field at the relevant time, considering the prior art. - Nonprovisional application: A regular US patent application that is examined and can mature into a patent. It must include claims and meet all formal requirements. - Novelty: The requirement that an invention is new, meaning it was not already disclosed in the prior art before the relevant filing date. - Patent: A government-granted right, for a limited time, to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing an invention, in exchange for publicly disclosing it. - Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): A 1970 treaty administered by WIPO that lets applicants file one international application and delay national filings, generally until 30 or 31 months from the priority date. - Patent pending: A notice that a patent application has been filed but not yet granted. It gives no enforceable rights by itself but signals that protection may follow. - Post-grant review (PGR): A PTAB proceeding in which a third party can challenge a US patent on any ground of invalidity, but only within nine months after the patent is granted. - Pre-Patent Pre-Partnering: The approach promoted on this site: set a realistic business strategy for your industry before going to market, and seek a suitable, intrigued and committed major partner when the project is ready, instead of building mainly for a takeover. - Prior art: All public evidence that an invention, or something similar, was already known before a given date, including patents, publications, products and public uses. - Priority date: The earliest filing date to which a patent application is entitled. It is used to decide what counts as prior art against the application. - Prototype: An early working model of an invention used to prove feasibility, test design choices and show partners and investors that the idea works. - Provisional application: A lower-cost US filing that secures an early filing date without examination. A nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months to claim its benefit. - PTAB: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a USPTO tribunal that hears appeals from examiners and conducts post-grant trials such as inter partes review and post-grant review. - Royalty: A payment made by a licensee to a patent owner for the right to use the invention, often calculated as a percentage of sales or a fixed amount per unit. - Silent Trading-Post: A concept proposed by the site's founder for a discreet, trusted venue where inventors and potential partners could find each other before full public disclosure, part of the Pre-patent Registry and silent Trading-Post proposal. - Specification: The written description of a patent or application, explaining the invention in enough detail that a skilled person could make and use it. - Super Economy: A concept proposed by the site's founder describing how patent and innovation policy could stimulate broad economic growth by helping more inventions reach the market. - Sweat equity: The value an inventor contributes through time, skill and effort rather than money, such as developing a prototype. It can be recognized in ownership or deal terms. - Technology transfer: The process of moving inventions from research organizations, such as universities, to companies that can develop and sell them, often through licensing. - Term sheet: A short, usually non-binding document summarizing the key terms of a proposed deal, such as structure, payments, exclusivity and responsibilities, before a definitive agreement is drafted. - Trade secret: Confidential business information that has value because it is not generally known and is protected by reasonable secrecy measures. It can last indefinitely but is lost if disclosed. - Trademark: A word, logo or other sign that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademarks protect brands, not inventions. - Unified Patent Court (UPC): A court shared by participating EU member states that began operating on June 1, 2023, hearing infringement and validity cases for European and Unitary Patents. - Utility patent: The most common type of patent, protecting new and useful processes, machines, articles of manufacture or compositions of matter, or improvements to them. - Venetian Patent Statute: The law passed by the Venetian Senate on 19 March 1474, widely regarded as the first general patent law. It protected new and ingenious working devices from copying for ten years. - WIPO: The World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency based in Geneva that administers international IP treaties, including the PCT.