Engineering Patent Applications

University License Agreement Common Mistakes. I recently helped out a friend negotiate a spin-out license agreement with his university. As a practicing lawyer, I negotiated dozens of these agreements. I thought that sharing some common mistakes could be helpful to others. 1. Not ensuring that the License grant contains all necessary rights. Not only does the company need a license to the patents, but also to any other university technology or materials that are necessary to commercialize the licensed patents (e.g, cell lines or know-how). 2. Not addressing future improvements. Ideally, get rights to any improvements that might be developed after the effective date of the license agreement. Alternatively, include a right for inventions related to the licensed patents over a particular period of time, or that relate to any improvements that are dominated by the licensed patents. At a minimum, get an option to negotiate a license to the improvements. 3. Not ensuring unencumbered sublicensing. Giving the University any right to approve a sublicense (including such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) means you actually do not have the right to sublicense. Also, the University should assume all sublicensing agreements if the license agreement terminates before the sublicense terms expire. 4. Not limiting the scope of the University’s retained rights. University’s retained rights should be limited to non-commercial research and educational purposes, and should not allow conduct of clinical trials. To avoid sponsored research by a competitor allowing a competitor to gain access to improvement inventions, consider entering into a sponsored research agreement. 5. Not negotiating anti-stacking provisions for sublicenses. It is common to get the right to decrease the total amount of royalties paid to the university in a royalty period by a specified percentage if the company needs to obtain licenses from third parties to practice the licensed technology or commercially develop the licensed product. It is also important to reduce the sublicensing percentage owned to the university to reflect the number of licensors to be paid upon a sublicensing deal. Finally, it’s better to give equity than a right to a certain percentage of proceeds upon a liquidation event (IPO or sale). The equity grant is subject to dilution. Hope this helps! #licensing #techtransfer #entrepreneur #universityspinout

She took out a loan at 25% interest just to afford the patent office fee. What she created still holds the fashion industry together at the seams, more than a century later. Helen Blanchard wasn't supposed to be an inventor. Her family had been wealthy Portland shipping merchants until the financial panic of 1866 wiped them out. After her father died, they lost everything - their family home. She ended up working the floor of a Boston clothing factory. Day after day, the same thread running through every problem. Sewing machines could only sew straight. You couldn't reinforce a buttonhole. You couldn't work with stretchy fabrics. You couldn't seal fabric edges to prevent fraying. Everything that needed strength or flexibility had to be done by hand. Helen had no technical training, no engineering background, no capital. She went about the problem sideways. Helen changed the machine so the needle moved side-to-side as it went forward. ////\ instead of ———— That back-and-forth pattern made possible what straight stitches couldn't: seal edges, reinforce buttonholes, handle stretch fabrics. Everything that had required hand-sewing could now be done by machine. She wasn't a one-stitch wonder. Over the next 42 years, Helen was granted 28 patents. Twenty-two were adopted by large commercial factories - a 78% commercialization rate that remains extraordinary even today. Her machines became factory standard equipment and helped enable the growth of affordable ready-to-wear clothing. The financial success matched the technical achievement. Helen and her sister Louise founded two companies together. By the time she was 50, she'd earned enough to buy back her family's ancestral estate in Portland - the same property they'd lost decades earlier. But Helen recognized something her fellow industrialists didn't. Her labor-saving machines were displacing the women she'd worked alongside on factory floors. In the 1890s, she moved to New York and devoted herself to helping women who had lost work in clothing factories because of her inventions. She used her fortune to support them - not as charity, but as responsibility. AI is displacing workers at scale right now. Helen Blanchard faced the same dilemma 150 years ago - and actually tried to solve it. What can today's tech builders learn from her? #ipidity #patents #sheinvents #fashiontech #seamslegit #stitchesgetriches

“Design Patent registration is optional in textile & jewellery business.” ❌ WRONG. Very costly mistake. I hear this almost every week from manufacturers: “Our designs change fast… copying is part of the business.” Let’s break the reality — in very simple terms 👇 ❌ MYTH: “Design Patent registration doesn’t really help in textiles or jewellery.” ✅ REALITY: For textile and jewellery manufacturers, design = business value. Here’s how Design Patent (Design Registration) actually helps: 1️⃣ Stops copycats — legally Your prints, patterns, motifs, shapes, surface designs, jewellery designs ➡️ can’t be copied legally once registered. 2️⃣ Turns creativity into an asset Your design is not just art — It becomes a sellable, licensable business asset. 3️⃣ Helps you win disputes faster Courts and authorities rely heavily on registered design certificates. Without registration: ❌ Long fights ❌ Weak position With registration: ✅ Faster relief ✅ Strong evidence 🔑 Simple truth: In textile & jewellery business, if you don’t protect your design — someone else will copy it. And once copied… you lose pricing power, exclusivity, and brand value. Over to you: Do you see design copying as “normal” in your industry — or a business risk? Let’s discuss 👇

Do the names Elias Howe or Isaac Singer ring a bell? They should - they’re two of the key figures behind one of the most revolutionary inventions of the Industrial Age: the sewing machine. While the wheel, telephone, and personal computer often steal the spotlight for transforming daily life, the humble sewing machine is one of history’s true unsung heroes. Before its invention in the 19th century, making clothes was an incredibly time-consuming task. Every garment, from a shirt to a suit, had to be sewn by hand - a labor of love and necessity. Thanks to innovators like Howe (who patented the lockstitch design in 1846) and Singer (who improved and commercialized the machine), sewing quickly became faster, more consistent, and more accessible. This single invention didn’t just change how people made clothes, it changed who could make them. It opened doors for home-based entrepreneurs, fueled the growth of the fashion industry, and quite literally stitched its way into millions of households. Today is National Sewing Machine Day, a moment to appreciate this powerful little machine that’s still helping us turn fabric into function from hemming jeans and crafting curtains to bringing one-of-a-kind designs to life. For some, sewing is a profession. For others, it’s therapy. For many, it’s a treasured tradition passed down through generations. The photo? That’s my grandma’s Singer, a well-loved machine I inherited and cherish. A reminder that great design never goes out of style.

𝗔 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗵𝘂𝘁𝗲—𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱. "File a provisional—it's quick and cheap!" This advice destroys more patents than any examiner rejection. Here's what happens too often: • Company A rushes a two-page provisional before their investor demo. It describes their "AI-powered analytics platform" in marketing terms. No technical details. No implementation specifics. Cost saved: $10,000.    • Company B invests two extra weeks creating a complete provisional with technical architecture, algorithms, and multiple implementations. Cost: $15,000.    One year later, both convert to nonprovisional patent applications. Fast forward to patent litigation or acquisition due diligence: • Company A's patent gets invalidated—their provisional didn't "sufficiently describe" what they're claiming • Company B's patent survives every challenge That $5,000 "savings"? It just cost Company A everything. The provisional trap has three lethal variations: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗡𝗮𝗽𝗸𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗰𝗵" 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽: Filing slideshows, marketing materials, or back-of-napkin drawings. Courts require enough detail that someone skilled in your field could build your invention. Your investor pitch deck doesn't qualify. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗞𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗸" 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽: Dumping every document into a provisional without connecting them to specific claims. Volume doesn't equal validity. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻" 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽: Your product pivots significantly after filing, but you can't add new matter to claim priority. That provisional now protects something you don't sell. Two solutions that actually work: 1. 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. Yes, they cost more upfront. They're also much less like to explode later. 2. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻. Include architecture diagrams, code snippets, alternative implementations, use cases. Pretend you're explaining it to a competitor's engineering team—because someday, you might be. If you wouldn't jump out of a plane with a hastily-packed parachute, don't bet your company on a hastily-drafted provisional. Need to file fast but file right? Let's talk strategy. #patents #intellectualproperty #startups

I recently spoke with a startup founder who wanted help filing a provisional patent application. The company was working on AI technology. They had already used an AI tool to draft what they believed was a finished provisional application. What they were looking for from me was essentially a quick review and a lawyer’s blessing so they could file it and secure a filing date. Then we talked about budget. They explained they were “just a startup” and mentioned a very small number. At that point I politely declined the work. Not because I didn’t want to help. Because the approach they were taking is one of the most common and most dangerous misunderstandings I see around provisional patents. Many founders think of a provisional as a simple placeholder. Something quick you file now, then you “clean it up later” when you convert it to a full patent application. But patents don’t really work that way. A provisional only protects what it actually describes in sufficient technical detail. If key aspects of the invention aren’t fully explained in that first filing, you may not get the benefit of that early filing date for those parts of the technology. And that’s where the real risk appears. Startups are constantly sharing their technology with the world: • investor pitch decks • demos and beta launches • conference talks • technical blog posts • academic collaborations If any of those disclosures happen after a weak provisional is filed, the company may discover later that the original filing didn’t actually cover the most valuable aspects of the invention. At that point, the patent strategy can become much more fragile than the founders expected. I’m seeing this issue more frequently as founders experiment with AI tools to draft patent filings and then file themselves, or look for a lawyer to quickly approve them. AI can absolutely help accelerate innovation. But a patent application, especially the first one, isn’t just paperwork to secure a date. It’s the foundation of a long-term business asset. When that foundation is thin, the entire IP strategy can be built on sand. For startups, the goal shouldn’t be simply filing something. The goal should be filing something that actually protects what matters.

When America's most famous inventor, Thomas Edison, tried to claim credit for his patent in the 1880s, a self-taught genius named Granville T. Woods took him to court and won. In the late 19th century, train travel was incredibly dangerous. With no reliable way for moving trains to communicate, horrific collisions were tragically common. 🚂 Granville T. Woods, born in Ohio in 1856, saw this problem and used his brilliant mind to find a solution. He was a mostly self-taught electrical engineer with a gift for seeing how things worked. In 1887, Woods patented a revolutionary device he called the 'Synchronous Multiplex Railway Telegraph.' It was a system that allowed moving trains and stations to communicate with each other through telegraph lines. For the first time, dispatchers could know where trains were in real-time. This simple ability to communicate drastically reduced the risk of head-on and rear-end collisions, saving countless lives. But this incredible, life-saving invention caught the eye of Thomas Edison. Edison filed a legal claim against Woods, stating that he was the rightful owner of a similar technology. Woods, an African American man with far fewer resources, had to defend his patent in court against one of the most powerful and wealthy men in America. The courts sided with Woods, affirming him as the true inventor. After being defeated, it's said that Edison was so impressed he offered Woods a prominent position at one of his companies. Woods turned it down, choosing his own independence and integrity. Granville T. Woods, sometimes called the 'Black Edison,' went on to secure over 60 patents. His story is a powerful reminder of how character and truth can overcome even the biggest challenges. 🙏 Sources: Encyclopedia.com, National Archives

In years of IP consulting, the saddest sentence I have heard is this: "We had the idea first." It comes up in the same situation every time. A business owner calls me after discovering that a competitor has filed a patent on an invention they believe is theirs. Sometimes the competitor filed weeks earlier. Sometimes months. Once, it was three days. In every case, the business owner is convinced that their prior conception gives them some right. A notebook entry. A prototype. An email chain proving the timeline. None of it matters. India follows a first to file system under the Patents Act, 1970. The law does not ask who thought of the invention first. It does not ask who built the first prototype or spent years developing the technology. It asks one question only. Who filed the patent application first. The system rewards action, not intention. I have seen this play out across pharmaceuticals, agri-tech, software, and medical devices. The pattern repeats. An inventor waits. They want to perfect it. They worry about cost. They plan to file next quarter. They publish a research paper before filing. And somewhere, someone else files first. There is one partial remedy worth knowing. Under Section 64 of the Patents Act, a granted patent can be challenged if the invention was publicly known or used in India before the priority date. But this is expensive, uncertain, and takes years. It is not a substitute for filing. A provisional patent application secures your priority date at a fraction of the cost of a complete application. It gives you twelve months to refine the invention and file completely. It is the most underused tool in the Indian patent system. File before you are ready. Not after you are certain. Because the saddest sentence in IP is not I lost the case. It is "I had the idea first".

Filing a patent as a startup founder can be daunting, but it’s one of the best ways to protect your innovation and add credibility to your startup. At Marketrix.ai we’re in the process of turning our provisional patent into a full utility patent. It’s been a challenging yet rewarding journey, and I’ve learned a lot along the way. Here are some tips for founders working on patents: ✅ Start with a provisional patent—it’s affordable and gives you 12 months to refine your invention. ✅ Focus on what makes your invention unique and how it solves a real problem. ✅ Use strong claims to cover your invention broadly while protecting key details. ✅ Work with a patent attorney to avoid mistakes and strengthen your application. ✅ Use your patent to stand out in the market and attract investors. Building a patent isn’t just about legal protection—it’s a strategic move to show the value of your innovation. If you’re thinking about filing or curious about the process, let’s chat. Want to dive deeper into the process? Check out my full article here: https://lnkd.in/g4JgDkJc Let’s protect what we’re building and push boundaries together! 💡 #Startups #Patents #Innovation #Entrepreneurship #AI #Marketrix

How I Learned to Calculate a Fair Royalty Rate for My Patent Licensing Deal 💰A few years ago, a startup founder approached me, excited yet anxious. He had developed a brilliant AI-based drone navigation system , something the market had never seen before.Then came the million-dollar question: “How much royalty should I charge if a company wants to license my patent?” 💰At first, he guessed. Then he Googled. Then he panicked. Because let’s be honest royalty calculation feels like rocket science when you’re new to it. 💰So, I walked him through it step by step. 🔹 Step 1: Know your invention’s scope Was his patent covering just the algorithm or the full drone navigation system? The broader the scope, the stronger the leverage. In his case, it was the core of the product. That meant higher value. 🔹 Step 2: Look at the industry benchmark We explored what others were charging in the aerospace tech licensing space. Turns out, typical rates ranged between 4%–8% of product revenue. 🔹 Step 3: Use the 25% profit rule as a guide This classic rule says , you, as the inventor, deserve about 25% of the profits that come from your patented innovation. It’s not a fixed law, but it gives clarity when both sides are negotiating. 🔹 Step 4: Negotiate with facts, not fear We adjusted the rate based on: 💰The exclusivity of the license, his R&D investment, and the market potential. Finally, they settled at a 6% royalty rate, with milestone bonuses for sales targets. He later told me, “That one patent became my recurring income stream.” 💰Royalty rate calculation isn’t about numbers alone it’s about understanding your invention’s true business value. Your patent isn’t just a certificate. It’s an asset that earns. #PatentLicensing #InnovationStory #RoyaltyRate #IPStrategy #StartupJourney #Inventors #TechnologyCommercialization #Patents #BusinessGrowth #IPR