Vision, focus and IP, a powerful mix

Please allow me to share this inspiring story about a person with a vision, someone with incredible focus and persistence. It is about William Ankoné, a dentist in the city of Enschede, the same place where I hold my office. Besides his busy practice, William is developing some complementary businesses and innovations, closely related to the dental practice. In one of these innovations, I was blessed to play a part. The invention is branded under the name DentalColors and is not only a new technology, more an entire visionary concept on dental treatment, in which an entire range of products will be developed and launched.

The corporate identity of DentalColors [1]

For me, the story commences somewhere back in 2009, when in one of the meetings of a residential gentlemen's club, William asked me if I could help him protect an invention. Well, sometimes I still think I should have said no, but it is difficult to say no to someone like William. Since he was trying to save money, we traded my services for a relative modest fee and an entire kitchen. Yes a kitchen! I had none to fit in my new apartment and William had a spare kitchen left over. Was it a good deal? Well from a financial point probably not, but I would not have liked to miss the experience of knowing the inspiring thinking of this very unique dentist. 

In his daily dental routine, William was frustrated about the impractical way of getting indicator fluids from the bottle to the teeth he was working on. Especially the indicator fluids for caries were quite cumbersome. These fluids come in a bottle, need to be poured in a vial, known as a dappen dish, and a small brush is then used to dip in the vial in order to apply with the brush the indicator fluid to the tooth under examination. If caries is still detected, more dental material needs to be removed, after which the routine of dipping and application is repeated, until no caries is anymore detected. The dappen dish, as shown in the following image does not allow the brush to be left standing upright inside it, simply because its walls are too low. It also does not allow the brush to rest on the rim stable enough for it not to slide off. Thus as most dentists would immediately agree, it becomes messy pretty soon.

Dappen dish as offered by e.g. Australian Safety Wholesalers [2]

In his search, William made some first prove of principle prototypes. These prototypes he showed me and they looked, honestly, as clumsy blocks. How could I know, I am not a dentist. At the rare chances I could have learned, I was mostly stifled from fear in the dentist chair, unable to study in detail the actions taken by the dentist working on me.

A conceptual design of the DentalColors tray including an applicator brush.

I must admit, at first I wasn't very convinced about the idea. Worse even, I wasn't very convinced about the persisting nature of William. The first patent application, well, after a dozen of versions, I stopped counting them. I think went through about twenty versions and drafts before it was good enough to obtain Williams approval. Never ever did a client research my patent drafts with such scrutiny. It was frustrating, time consuming and painstaking, but the result appeared to be great.... 

This perfect patent application was filed and about 6 month later, early spring last year, we received the search report and written opinion. It was devastatingly destroying, and abandonment of the idea of protection appeared the most evident option. However, not to William, oh no. Giving up was simply no option, so we sat down, took all the documents we could possibly find including those cited in the search report and we made a claim chart. Quite an extensive claim chart it became. We spend a full Saturday combining features and checking the state of the art, until we had put in sufficient technical features that it would be highly impossible for any patent examiner to doubt the patentability.

A 3D model of the DentalColors caries indicator tray

And there it was, after about another half year, a very positive opinion was issued by the dutch patent authorities. Since the patentability issue is of the table, now it is up to William to make this invention a success.

Will this technology be successful?

Indeed, this technology is going to be extremely successful. The persistence, focus, and vision of William Ankoné will be unstoppable, and the concept of DentalColors will be in each and every dental practice, around the globe, sooner than we can imagine. This, because William understood and applied the powerful mix of vision, focus and IP.


Hendrik de Lange

References:

[1] http://www.dentalcolors.com/

[2] http://www.australiansafetywholesalers.com/

Patent valuation

Clients ask me often what the value of their idea is and if it is sensible to file a patent application for their invention. Well, here are some considerations.

The value of an idea is very difficult to assess, but still I would like to share two basic tools: First of all a generalized graph showing the dollar value of an idea, at its typical various stages of development.

This graph is showing the various stages of an idea, through prototype and patent protected innovation. Further in the development of an idea, building a company around it is indispensable. The values are estimates, based on some company estimations. Some insights from this image are:

If you are an inventor and you are not aiming to build a company around your invention, it will not be worth more than a couple of thousand dollars, about the price for getting proper patent protection.

Crowd funding campaigns can virtually kickstart your innovation and boost it about 3-4 orders of magnitude in value.

Estimations based on this graph are by nature rough estimates, spanning about two orders of magnitude.

For an indication of the order of magnitude, various patent portfolio's sold in the last decade have been inserted as well. Patent portfolio's nowadays represent a true estimated value of the company, which can be concluded from the following image, produced by Ocean Tomo [1]. This image indicates that the intangible assets (for tech companies it is predominantly IP) will determine about 80% of the company value.

For various innovations, after the first introduction, the time to reach global coverage is different, very different indeed. And, in the path from idea, prototype, first clients to regional coverage, 97% of all inventions have died off. From the market introduction of any innovation, an S-curve type of growth is expected, which is represented by the following graph:

As an example the number of Facebook users is depicted, together with an S-curve fit. The time from the market introduction to half the saturation is about 7.6 years, an astoundingly short period of time. The steps from market introduction to global coverage was attained within a year after market introduction! Nowadays, Facebook has a market capitalization of around 200 billion, off chart in the first graph.

In estimation of innovations and patent portfolios I generally use this second tool, the mathematical S-curve formula. I use it per invention or per patent family, by calculating a cumulative turn over, based on an S-curve fit. Evidently the S-curve fit is more precise if more data is available. In the cumulation there is incorporated a discount cash flow correction. If an innovation has not yet hit the market, estimations begin to be shaky, and best guesses for market saturation, market introduction and speed of penetration have to be based on similar products or best guesses.

Actually, the value of an idea, any idea starts to be relevant only when first clients are found. That is why it is for physical products -that need expensive production investments- very difficult to decide, weather to invest, patent and start production or not. Here crowd funding may prove very valuable.


Any questions? Please leave a message below, I will respond!



Hendrik de Lange



Sources:

[1] http://www.oceantomo.com/productsandservices/investments/intangible-market-value

Vision, Focus and IP, a powerful mix

I would like to share the following fascinating story with you. It is about a person who has a very clear vision and focus, and I am proud to cooperate with him and be part of his amazing journey. This person is named Antoon Buitenhuis, founder and managing director of the limited liability company Siron. To my opinion, Antoon's mission or better yet, Siron's mission may best be described as: "saving lives".

Dry Deluge Testing

Antoon and his small team have developed two technologies that will safe many lives, and he is now slowly starting to earn money with both of them. The first technology, for which the first patent applications originate form 2012, concerns dry testing of open fire extinguishing systems. This technology avoids system corrosion and blockage.

One of the very first real life tests on an offshore gas production platform.

For this technology, Antoon developed a high performance smoke generator and special dedicated smoke precursors, such that tests can be performed in all circumstances, even with the harsh conditions in offshore oil and gas facilities. This has been quite a daunting challenge, and numerous tests have been performed in smoke distribution, specific smoke density, sufficient flow, sufficient pressure drop etc. etc.

Most of the tests I have taken part of, and we had definitively fun calibrating our volume flow measurement devices, by driving around with it in a car, while checking speed on a GPS locator. Also our numerous, quite unconventional smoke density measurements took some attention, since cautious neighbors more than once thought that Siron's premises took fire.

Now that the first real life tests have proven invariably superior to conventional seawater testing on several off shore production platforms, the offshore world is rapidly switching from conventional seawater testing to Antoon's technology. This technology has even proven to be so revolutionizing, that regulatory authorities are considering to prescribe his method as mandatory testing. For this, regulatory bodies around the globe are now scrutinizing this game changing invention.

In the early days, like most entrepreneurs, Antoon had too little resources to finance his patent protection. Since I was so convinced about this technology, we agreed that I would write the first patent applications, and be paid for it, after Siron became successful in licensing the technology. Well, it has proven to a good investment and the right strategy. Now, four years down the road, clients are lining up for a license, of which the underlying technology is considered patentable by the relevant patent authorities.

Domestic Sprinkler

The second technology, in which I was involved primarily for the patenting part, is the domestic low pressure sprinkler. This technology, Siron developed in cooperation with BAM, a Dutch construction company and Jomos, a Swiss Sprinkler manufacturer. Here, Antoon and his partners developed a new Sprinkler head, that is specifically adapted for low pressure water lines.

This invention is a ingenious combination on on the one hand specifically adapted sprinkler heads and on the other hand a specifically designed grid of sprinkler heads. Also this technology is now considered patentable by the relevant patent authorities, and is likely to be licensed out soon.

First domestic Sprinklers, in the corporate identity colors of BAM

While the dry deluge testing will definitively save offshore workers lives sooner or later, the domestic sprinkler will safe even many more, one day maybe even yours or mine!

Besides these in house developed products, Antoon has licensed in some technologies from foreign IP holders. One further remarkable product concerns compressed-air foam, a specific relatively dense and sticky foam that builds a covering blanket over many surfaces. This blanket can virtually suffocate any fire and is typically suited for chemical industries. Also this technology will safe lives.

Compressed-air generated foam, building a covering blanket on all surfaces at MSD, Oss

Behind these products is a truly remarkable person, someone who strongly disagrees with me about his mission, a person who is humble in his being, and extremely dedicated in the progression of his company. Antoon for sure is going to be extraordinary successful with all of these ground breaking technologies. Why? because he understood and applied the powerful mix of vision, focus and IP.



Hendrik de Lange

Double Dutch, why to file two instead of one Dutch patent application

Sometimes it is essential to get a patent, published together with a positive written opinion, given out by the Dutch Patent Authority.

One of the reasons is the innovation box. Dutch tax inspectors are now studying in detail your written opinions and are likely not to accept the reduced tax regime under the innovation box, if the written opinion is negative about the patentability of the invention.

And believe me, most written opinions are negative.....

How to repair this? 

Well there is nothing to do to repair this negative opinion in the same patent application. This is because the written opinion is only an opinion, not an appealable decision. 

So how to cope with this unfavorable situation of having filed a patent application and having received a negative written opinion? 

Well by filing a second application, with much more restricted claims, such that it is almost impossible for the patent examiner in question to issue a negative written opinion on this second patent application. 

Are you interested in how to strategically best cope with this issue and get the exact details on how to deal with it, please send me an email, I will be happy to advice you. 

Thank you for reading my blog, 

Hendrik de Lange 

500 years of patents in the Netherlands

Some statistics

The first Dutch patent, based on a technical principle was granted on October 24, 1515, almost 5 centuries ago. During the past five hundred years neat and highly accurate statistics on the number of patents granted in the Netherlands can be reconstructed. The first three centuries of patents granted in the Netherlands are represented in the following image. The number of patents is depicted per decade, running up to the date indicated on the abscissa.

Here we can see a steep rise in the number of patents in the start of the 17th century, the golden age of the Netherlands. The golden age came to an end strikingly similar with the strong decline in patent numbers at the turn of the centuries. Patent numbers dropped from around 100 per decade in the mid 17th century to less than 10 per decade in the mid 18th century; a true decimation.

The data from 1800 to 1950 are certainly not less interesting, as can be seen in the following image:

Here, the number of patent per year had risen from about 0-1 during the French era (1795-1810) under the various French patent laws to about 160 a year shortly before the abolition of the Patent law in 1869. That moment, a pitch dark age of absence of any patent system started in the Netherlands, which lasted up to 1912. Those 41 Years, the Netherlands had to cope with no patent system whatsoever.

After the new Dutch patent law of 1910 had entered into force on 1912, the numbers of patents granted started to rise again, to about 3000 a year, before the 1929 crises hit. From the early 1930ies to the end of the 2nd world war, numbers fell again. After the war, things could only go up, as the following image show:

From 1980 the number of granted Dutch patents start to rise spectacularly. Shortly before 1980, the European Patent Office started to grant European Patents designated for the Netherlands. The steep rise went up to about 53000 patents granted with effect in the Netherlands in 2012. In 2013 a small decline in granted patents was seen, though it appears that in 2014, growth will pick up again.

To depict the whole 5 centuries in one image, I have made use of logarithmic plot, since the orders of magnitude differ so much during this complete time span. From this figure, it is striking that after the 17th century maximum, it lasted about two full centuries before these patent numbers were reached again. That time, in 1830, the industrial revolution was already on its way.
 

Why Bother?

Why is this all so important? Well first of all it is fascinating to know that already five centuries ago, people started to realize that ingenuity needed a reward of some kind. This  reward was given in form of a temporary monopoly.

Lately, there have been quite some discussion about the uses and benefits of a patent system. Especially the questions "do patents benefit society?" and "do patents hinder the development of technology?" are increasingly posed by patent-critics.

I hope to find answers to these questions in these old and long time spanning statistical data. Answers to these questions are notoriously difficult to give in modern times, since both patent numbers and wealth seem to have risen almost constantly, ever since the industrial revolution. See my earlier blogs on this topic [3, 4, 5]. Here some strong positive correlations between patent numbers and wealth are depicted, however causalities are way more difficult to prove.  

I am now trying to find long term accurate Dutch wealth statistics, such that a neat comparison can be made, and hopefully some more solid conclusions on the effects of patents on wealth and prosperity can be drawn...

Cant wait to have more on this fascinating topic!


Literature and sources:

[1] Federico, P. J., 1964: Historical Patent Statistics 1791 – 1961, in: Journal of the Patent Office Society (46), No. 2, S. 112-116.

[2] Doorman, G. 1940: Octrooien voor uitvindingen in de Nederlanden uit de 16de-18de eeuw. 's-Gravenhage 1940.

[3] http://octrooifabriek.blogspot.nl/2014/01/patents-do-contribute-to-prosperity.html

[4] http://octrooifabriek.blogspot.nl/2014/01/patents-do-contribute-to-prosperity-ii.html

[5] http://octrooifabriek.blogspot.nl/2013/11/should-we-abolish-our-patent-systems.html

Patent number one

Patent number 1

For those who have some time left to play around, a neat game is looking for the very first patents issued. For this exercise, a look in the EPO databases [1], the USPTO databases [2] or the WIPO databases [3] may be sufficient.

Quite astonishing, the patents bearing number 1, i.e.: US1, DE1, FR1, US1, NL1 etc. do exist, and can be retrieved from the various databases. Even more astonishing, at least in the Netherlands, the NL1 is not the first Dutch patent at all.

The very first Dutch patent was issued in the year 1515 [4]. almost four hundred years earlier than the issue date of NL1. This patent was issued while there was no codified patent law, and the powers of the monopoly including a punishment for the infringer was stated in the document itself. From this year up to the French era, a number of 1081 Dutch patents have thus been granted.

In the year 1809 finally, the Dutch King Lodewijk Napoleon (the French ruler in the Netherlands) issued a first codified (mini)patent law, which was superseded in 1810 by the original French patent law from 1791. Finally in 1817 a new Dutch patent law was issued, which was abolished in 1869. when the true dark ages of our beloved patent system had started. Only in 1912 a new patent law was reinstated in the Netherlands, and only under this law, the NL1 was issued on April 3, 1913.

During the French rule, only 7 patents were granted. In the era thereafter, under the patent law of 1817 until its sad abolishment in 1869, a number of 4541 Dutch patents have been granted.

Adding up: Before our assumed first Dutch patent, Nl1 already 5629 Dutch patents have been issued.

It is about time to fill this gap, and get these great sources of historic literature and culture in the Espacenet databases! Examiners love to cite historic disclosures, well here is an excellent opportunity to extend the body of "state of the art".
 
And more importantly, it is pure fun looking in these documents full of ancient technologies....


Sources/Literature

[1] European Patent Office http://www.espacenet.org/

[2] United States Patent and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov

[3] World Intellectual Property Organisation http://www.wipo.int

[4] G. Doorman, "Octrooien voor uitvindingen in de Nederlanden uit de 16e-18e eeuw", den Haag (1940)

Patents do contribute to prosperity II

If we plot the number of patents granted in the USA against the GDP for the last 200 years, the following graph emerges:

Well there is a clear correlation between the number of patents granted and the GDP/capita.

Do patents contribute to prosperity? YES THEY DO!


Sources:

[1] Gap Minder: http://www.gapminder.org/data/  Data on GDP/cap in PPP US$ 2005: Gross Domestic Product per capita by Purchasing Power Parities (in international dollars, fixed 2005 prices). The inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries has been taken into account.

[2] Statistical website of the USPTO:  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

[3] Federico, P. J., 1964: Historical Patent Statistics 1791 – 1961, in: Journal of the Patent Office Society (46), No. 2, S. 112-116.