For any company or business, it’s important to recognize and protect intellectual property (IP). In the case of novel inventions, which can include machines, processes and even medicines, a patent offers IP protection and lets firms control how those inventions are used. Patents, which in most countries can be granted for up to 20 years, give the owner exclusive rights so that others can’t directly copy the creation. A patent essentially prevents others from making, using or selling your invention.

But there are more reasons for holding a patent than IP protection alone. In particular, patents go some way to protecting the investment that may have been necessary to generate the IP in the first place, such as the cost of R&D facilities, materials, labour and expertise. Those factors need to be considered when you’re deciding if patenting is the right approach or not.

Patents are tangible assets that can be sold to other businesses or licensed for royalties to provide your compay with regular income

Patents are in effect a form of currency. Counting as tangible assets that add to the overall value of a company, they can be sold to other businesses or licensed for royalties to provide regular income. Some companies, in fact, build up or acquire significant patent portfolios, which can be used for bargaining with competitors, potentially leading to cross-licensing agreements where both parties agree to use each other’s technology.

Patents also say something about the competitive edge of a company, by demonstrating technical expertise and market position through the control of a specific technology. Essentially, patents give credibility to a company’s claims of its technical know-how: a patent shows investors that a firm has a unique, protected asset, making the business more appealing and attractive to further investment.

However, it’s not all one-way traffic and there are obligations on the part of the patentee. Firstly, a patent holder has to reveal to the world exactly how their invention works. Governments favour this kind of public disclosure as it encourages broader participation in innovation. The downside is that whilst your competitors cannot directly copy you, they can enhance and improve upon your invention, provided those changes aren’t covered by the original patent.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that a patent holder is responsible for patent enforcement and any ensuing litigation; a patent office will not do this for you. So you’ll have to monitor what your competitors are up to and decide on what course of action to take if you suspect your patent’s been infringed. Trouble is, it can sometimes be hard to prove or disprove an infringement – and getting the lawyers in can be expensive, even if you win.

Money talks

Probably the biggest consideration of all is the cost and time involved in making a patent application. Filing a patent requires a rigorous understanding of “prior art” – the existing body of relevant knowledge on which novelty is judged. You’ll therefore need to do a lot of work finding out about relevant established patents, any published research and journal articles, along with products or processes publicly disclosed before the patent’s filing date.

Before it can be filed with a patent office, a patent needs to be written as a legal description, which includes all the legwork like an abstract, background, detailed specifications, drawings and claims of the invention. Once filed, an expert in the relevant technical field will be assigned to assess the worth of the claim; this examiner must be satisfied that the application is both unique and “non-obvious” before it’s granted.

Even when the invention is judged to be technically novel, in order to be non-obvious, it must also involve an “inventive step” that would not be obvious to a person with “ordinary skill” in that technical field at the time of filing. The assessment phase can result in significant to-ing and fro-ing between the examiner and the applicant to determine exactly what is patentable. If insufficient evidence is found, the patent application will be refused.

Patents are only ever granted in a particular country or region, such as Europe, and the application process has to be repeated for each new place (although the information required is usually pretty similar). Translations may be required for some countries, there are fees for each application and, even if a patent is granted, you have to pay an additional annual bill to maintain the patent (which in the UK rises year on year).

Patents can take years to process, which is why many companies pay specialized firms to support their applications

Patent applications, in other words, can be expensive and can take years to process. That’s why many companies pay specialized firms to support their patent applications. Those firms employ patent attorneys – legal experts with a technical background who help inventors and companies manage their IP rights by drafting patent applications, navigating patent office procedures and advising on IP strategy. Attorneys can also represent their clients in disputes or licensing deals, thereby acting as a crucial bridge between science/engineering and law.

Perspiration and aspiration

It’s impossible to write about patents without mentioning the impact that Thomas Edison had as an inventor. During the 20th century, he became the world’s most prolific inventor with a staggering 1093 US patents granted in his lifetime. This monumental achievement remained unsurpassed until 2003, when it was overtaken by the Japanese inventor Shunpei Yamazaki and, more recently, by the Australian “patent titan” Kia Silverbrook in 2008.

Edison clearly saw there was a lot of value in patents, but how did he achieve so much? His approach was grounded in systematic problem solving, which he accomplished through his Menlo Park lab in New Jersey. Dedicated to technological development and invention, it was effectively the world’s first corporate R&D lab. And whilst Edison’s name appeared on all the patents, they were often primarily the work of his staff; he was effectively being credited for inventions made by his employees.

I have a love–hate relationship with patents or at least the process of obtaining them

I will be honest; I have a love–hate relationship with patents or at least the process of obtaining them. As a scientist or engineer, it’s easy to think all the hard work is getting an invention over the line, slogging your guts out in the lab. But applying for a patent can be just as expensive and time-consuming, which is why you need to be clear on what and when to patent. Even Edison grew tired of being hailed a genius, stating that his success was “1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”.

Still, without the sweat of patents, your success might be all but 99% aspiration.

The post The pros and cons of patenting appeared first on Physics World.

I am intrigued by entrepreneurship. Is it something we all innately possess – or can entrepreneurship be taught to anyone (myself included) for whom it doesn’t come naturally? Could we all – with enough time, training and support – become the next Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson or Martha Lane Fox?

In my professional life as an engineer in industry, we often talk about the importance of invention and innovation. Without them, products will become dated and firms will lose their competitive edge. However, inventions don’t necessarily sell themselves, which is where entrepreneurs have a key influence.

So what’s the difference between inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs? An inventor, to me, is someone who creates a new process, application or machine. An innovator is a person who introduces something new or does something for the first time. An entrepreneur, however, is someone who sets up a business or takes on a venture, embracing financial risks with the aim of profit.

Scientists and engineers are naturally good inventors and innovators. We like to solve problems, improve how we do things, and make the world more ordered and efficient. In fact, many of the greatest inventors and innovators of all time were scientists and engineers – think James Watt, George Stephenson and Frank Whittle.

But entrepreneurship requires different, additional qualities. Many entrepreneurs come from a variety of different backgrounds – not just science and engineering – and tend to have finance in their blood. They embrace risk and have unlimited amounts of courage and business acumen – skills I’d need to pick up if I wanted to be an entrepreneur myself.

Risk and reward

Engineers are encouraged to take risks, exploring new technologies and designs; in fact, it’s critical for companies seeking to stay competitive. But we take risks in a calculated and professional manner that prioritizes safety, quality, regulations and ethics, and project success. We balance risk taking with risk management, spotting and assessing potential risks – and mitigating or removing them if they’re big.

Courage is not something I’ve always had professionally. Over time, I have learned to speak up if I feel I have something to say that’s important to the situation or contributes to our overall understanding. Still, there’s always a fear of saying something silly in front of other people or being unable to articulate a view adequately. But entrepreneurs have courage in their DNA.

So can entrepreneurship be taught? Specifically, can it be taught to people like me with a technical background – and, if so, how? Some of the most famous innovators, like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, James Dyson and Benjamin Franklin, had scientific or engineering backgrounds, so is there a formula for making more people like them?

Skill sets and gaps

Let’s start by listing the skills that most engineers have that could be beneficial for entrepreneurship. In no particular order, these include:

However, there are mindset differences between engineers and entrepreneurs that any training would need to overcome. These include:

Such skills may not always come naturally to engineers and scientists, but they can be incorporated into our teaching and learning. Some great examples of how to do this were covered in Physics World last year. In addition, there is a growing number of UK universities offering science and engineering degrees combined with entrepreneurship.

The message is that whilst some scientists and engineers become entrepreneurs, not all do. Simply having a science or engineering background is no guarantee of becoming an entrepreneur, nor is it a requirement. Nevertheless, the problem-solving and technical skills developed by scientists and engineers are powerful assets that, when combined with business acumen and entrepreneurial drive, can lead to business success.

Of course, entrepreneurship may not suit everybody – and that’s perfectly fine. No-one should be forced to become an entrepreneur if they don’t want to. We all need to play to our core strengths and interests and build well-rounded teams with complementary skillsets – something that every successful business needs. But surely there’s a way of teaching entrepreneurism too?

The post Can entrepreneurship be taught? An engineer’s viewpoint appeared first on Physics World.