Slashdot Mirror
Designing a Patent-Incentive Program?
SoulMaster writes "The company I work for (we are a one-year-old start-up) has recently started filing patents to protect some of its intellectual property. At the onset of the patent process, one of the executives drafted a very basic Patent Incentive Program (PIP) which is now under full review to ensure that it is both accurate and fair. The basics of our original PIP are that inventors receive (or co-inventors share): $500 for each provisional filing, $1500 for an actual patent filing (with full claim-sets defined), and $5000 for any patent that is granted by the USPTO. While the current program seems fair to our staff, we have been unable to find anything to compare it to. Moreover, the revamp of the program is likely to grant an equity stake in the company (via an Options grant) rather than cash payouts. I've scoured Google for information, but because internally documented PIPs aren't generally public knowledge, the results are limited. Thus, I have decided to ask Slashdot users: How does the company you work for handle Patent incentives? Do they have them at all? Are they cash or equity based?"
but I patented the idea so it looks like you're out of luck!
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
The entire idea of a "patent incentive program" seems preposterous to me. Why on earth would a company want to incentivize employees to churn out patents? Patents are usually worthless. The vast majority of patents (like 99%) have absolutely no value. Most patents will not yield enough money to recover the $5000 spent on incentivizing the employee, to say nothing about the many thousands spent on patent attorneys.
Generating valuable intellectual property is enormously more difficult, and far more valuable, than patenting things. I could come up with 10 patentable ideas off the top of my head (and I have patents from various employers).
I would also have grave concerns about any company that focused on patents. In almost every such company I've dealt with, they did not have any intellectual property worth patenting. It is an absurd presumption for any company that they will turn out discovery after discovery which warrants protection, or that they will turn out discovery after discovery if they institute an incentive to do so. Instead of worrying about patents, their concern should be having one discovery or one program that is worth anything at all. If they manage that, then they'll be ahead of 90% of startups. But if they concern themselves with protecting intellectual property rather than generating it then they're in big trouble.
However, if the company is insistent on offering incentives for patents, then it should offer incentives based upon how much money others will pay to license the intellectual property and use the patent. If the amount others are willing to pay for a given patent is "$0" (most likely) then the incentive to employees should be nothing.
In other words, if they offer a monetary incentive per patent, then the employee is paid to produce any kind of patent. The idea is absurd. Happily, the USPTO no longer accepts patents for perpetual motion machines, otherwise I as an employee would generate 20 patents just for that.
I'm a patent attorney in Silicon Valley, and have worked with, under, and around a number of different schemes.
This isn't legal advice -- these are my opinions -- if you want legal advice, go buy some.
It is common to condition payment of filing awards on the signing of the declaration, oath, and assignment by the inventor -- the company doesn't pay until the inventor has signed.
Some also condition payment on being an employee at the time of the event -- filing the patent, issue date of the patent. That way you don't have the obligation to pay departed employees. But having said that, whoever is running the scheme should have the discretion to pay out equal amounts to ex- and non- employees when named on filed and/or issued patents. You get more interest and attention that way.
Another common approach is to pay $N per inventor for up to 4 named inventors, and for N>4 to pay each inventor $4N/k where k is the number of inventors.
Some places pay on disclosure submission. If you decide to do that, pay on *accepted* disclosures, not everything that gets thrown over the wall. While you want lots of disclosures, you don't want a lot of crap.
Decide at the outset *when* you're going to pay inventors -- some pay and present quarterly with great fanfare. My opinion is that significantly decouples the desired behaviour from reward. I much prefer having a system where things get filed, I send a note to payroll, and the $$ automagically appears in people's next paychecks. That system also minimizes the chances of people dropping through the cracks over a quarter. Yeah, have quarterly or annual beer bashes where you honor inventors as well, but don't hold up the money!
Oh, as part of that whole deal, work out with your finance types which department pays for awards -- my feeling is that it should follow who pays for filing, prosecution, issuance, and maintenance costs. If the division/group (hardware, let's say) pays for filing and prosecution, they should pay for awards. On the other hand, if filing and prosecution gets billed to G&A (corporate overhead) then awards should follow. Doing it that way puts awards costs into the entire life-cycle costs of a patent filing.
This is incorrect, to my knowledge. Universities and other institutions engaged in what is essentially publicly funded research do not keep control of the patents that result from research: rather it's the individual researchers themselves who retain control of such patents.
What do you suppose they do with those patents? They start an outside company not affiliated with the university to capitalize on the patent(s) and reap personal profit from it. The university basically doesn't get - or isn't legally entitled to - a dime of that profit. This has been happening for decades.
Frankly, such patentable innovations discovered by virtue of public funding should be registered to The Public Domain (or Public Trust), rather than to individual researchers or even universities. If it's bragging rights they want, they can still proclaim their involvement. If public resources, taxes or the equivalent, made the research possible in the first place, though, then no individual person or institution should be able to claim any exclusive legal ownership of that little piece of knowledge.
(Frankly no one should be able to claim exclusive legal ownership of any bit of knowledge, IMO, but I'm throwing the dissenters a bone here.)