Protecting Business Innovations via Patent

"I found the course to be exceptionally informative and well-structured. The comprehensive coverage of patent basics, including the essential requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and utility, provided a solid foundation for understanding the complexities of intellectual property law. The real-world case studies, such as the Smuckers' “Uncrustables” and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, offered valuable insights into the practical applications of patent law and the importance of strategic thinking in patent filings. Additionally, the exploration of global considerations and strategies for securing intellectual property in different jurisdictions was particularly beneficial. Overall, the course has greatly enhanced my understanding of patent law and equipped me with the knowledge to navigate the patent application process effectively. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to deepen their understanding of intellectual property protection."

Feel free to adjust or personalize it to better reflect your experience!

I really enjoyed the online course. I thought it was well planned and layed out, easy for me to follow. The work load(h.w. & test)was just enough, so i could finish everything with enough time, learn about the topics and not feel over loaded and rushed.



Overall I really like this class because all lectures, assignments, and tests are straight forward. A couple things I dislike about the class are that there should be more opportunities for extra credit and it would be awesome if the final was an objective essay about what we have learned in this class or what we like about the class. I believe that I have more knowledge about ocean, weather, and marine lives and hopefully, I can use them in real life.



The course was everything you said it would be, fun but a lot of work. And it was! I enjoyed the web-labs because they were a lot of fun and easy to understand. And the answers were usually somewhere in the text. I also liked the assignments that required us to get online. Sometimes articles aside from the reading book gave me a better idea and understanding of the subject for that week. What I disliked was the short essay question because I found it difficult to explain certain concepts without introducing in some way, Ideas from the course notes or book (keeping in mind plagiarism). I never expected to learn so much from an online class; I now see the ocean life in a whole new way. I know I could have done better, but in the end I learned that an online class could be as much work or more than a regular class. However, I still enjoyed it very much.



I really enjoyed this class and the format it was presented in. For me, I learn and retain much more through an online class due to the fact you can do the course as an ¡§open book.¡¨ This really makes me search for the answer and in return, I retain more information. I found it relaxing to be able to turn the work on the assignments and test at my leisure and when I had the time. I liked the fact you were very clear that more internet research may be necessary for some assignments To be honest, there is nothing that I disliked about the course. I will definitely be taking another online course from you!

I am thankful to you all, that I have done a course in Coursera & I may say something that Companies that focus heavily on research and development generally have more value tied up in intangible assets—patents and other intellectual property—than they do in material assets. Different sectors take very different approaches to managing those resources. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, play hardball—they’ll do anything to protect a key patent. That’s not so surprising when you consider that a single patent can sometimes safeguard an entire product. Technology companies, however, have to cooperate with one another because a complex product can incorporate several thousand patents, many of which are held by other organizations. The patents, therefore, become a form of currency exchanged among them.

Recently, though, technology companies have been attacked by patent sharks, firms with hidden intellectual property that surface, threatening to sue, when their rights are inadvertently infringed. Most of the time, the assault comes out of the blue from an unknown source, and enterprises usually aren’t able to identify their opponent until it is too late for them to react. What’s more, their traditional line of defense, designed for taking on visible competitors, is completely unsuited for this type of guerrilla warfare.

To avoid shark attacks, companies will have to go beyond relying on legal remedies. They’ll also need to move away from amassing huge patent portfolios for cross-licensing with competitors; develop smarter, simpler standards and design more-modular components; cooperate earlier with competitors; make sure that functional groups within and among firms share information about shark attacks; and abandon the practice of filing for patents on ever smaller, less significant inventions. In other words, they’re going to have to turn their R&D processes inside out.

I am thankful to all of you, as I am doing the course in Coursera & I must say that Companies that focus heavily on research and development generally have more value tied up in intangible assets—patents and other intellectual property—than they do in material assets. Different sectors take very different approaches to managing those resources. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, play hardball—they’ll do anything to protect a key patent. That’s not so surprising when you consider that a single patent can sometimes safeguard an entire product. Technology companies, however, have to cooperate with one another because a complex product can incorporate several thousand patents, many of which are held by other organizations. The patents, therefore, become a form of currency exchanged among them.

Recently, though, technology companies have been attacked by patent sharks, firms with hidden intellectual property that surface, threatening to sue, when their rights are inadvertently infringed. Most of the time, the assault comes out of the blue from an unknown source, and enterprises usually aren’t able to identify their opponent until it is too late for them to react. What’s more, their traditional line of defense, designed for taking on visible competitors, is completely unsuited for this type of guerrilla warfare.

To avoid shark attacks, companies will have to go beyond relying on legal remedies. They’ll also need to move away from amassing huge patent portfolios for cross-licensing with competitors; develop smarter, simpler standards and design more-modular components; cooperate earlier with competitors; make sure that functional groups within and among firms share information about shark attacks; and abandon the practice of filing for patents on ever smaller, less significant inventions. In other words, they’re going to have to turn their R&D processes inside out.

The Alice Corp. was filing patents since 1999 regarding the idea of computer systems to manage 'Settlement risks'. The filed patents were not supported with any working model which made the overall concept limited just to an idea and by the three rules of patent filing the idea alone cannot be patented. Later on when CLS Bank international sued Alice Corp. they had a strong support of their working model and the sales they have made from it.

From the two-part frame work firstly, Claims of issue are directed to patent ineligible concept of an abstract idea. The petitioners claimed that the idea proposed has to relate to previous human actions which the court refused to. The court said that the patent failed to transform the concept into something patentable, therby failing the second step of inventive concept. Since the Alice Corp. had just an abstract idea the concept adding generic steps to that would not be a strong support to the patent having the working model in opposition. Therefore the court has to give the judgement in the CLS Bank Internationals side since the had all the supporting hardware and documents whereas Alice Corp. just had abstract idea.

This course will introduce you to the basic elements of academic information seeking - we will explore the search process from defining a strategy to evaluating and documenting your search results. Attending the course will make you a proficient information seeker. You will learn how to carry out comprehensive literature searches based on your own research assignment. You will be guided through the various information seeking steps from selecting relevant search strategies and techniques to evaluating your search results, documenting your search process and citing your sources. Attending the course will enable you to: • Identify your information need • Evaluate databases and other information resources • Set up search strategies and use various search techniques • Formulate search strings based on your own research assignment • Identify relevant material types • Undertake critical evaluation of your sources • Search more efficiently on the internet • Avoid plagiarism • Cite correctly • Work with reference management • Document your search process The course is intended for undergraduate students but the lessons will be useful to anyone

This course is fantastic and very useful. The instruction was easy to understand, very valuable, enjoyable and easy to learn. I learned a lot from it. It includes the steps in the patenting process. It does not go into the legal terminology used in writing patent claims (a subject for lawyers that it is pretty awkward) which is desirable for someone who wants to write its own patent claim, but it is something that is better left to lawyers due to its higher difficulty. The course informs about costs, steps to follow, drawbacks, extent, where to file, where applicable, etc. It will let you decide if you want to pursue a patent, what kind of patent to file, how long things will take, the outcomes, etc. It will give you an excellent overall view of the patent process. It will prepare you for what to expect when filing a patent. Pretty useful.

If what you need is to learn terminology to write patent claims (patent legal terminology such as "further including", "heretofore", "whereby", "wherein" then this is not the course, but such addition to the course will be great.

I am thankful to all of you, as I am doing the course in Coursera & I must say that Companies that focus heavily on research and development generally have more value tied up in intangible assets—patents and other intellectual property—than they do in material assets. Different sectors take very different approaches to managing those resources. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, play hardball—they’ll do anything to protect a key patent. That’s not so surprising when you consider that a single patent can sometimes safeguard an entire product. Technology companies, however, have to cooperate with one another because a complex product can incorporate several thousand patents, many of which are held by other organizations. The patents, therefore, become a form of currency exchanged among them.

Recently, though, technology companies have been attacked by patent sharks, firms with hidden intellectual property that surface, threatening to sue, when their rights are inadvertently infringed. Most of the time, the assault comes out of the blue from an unknown source, and enterprises usually aren’t able to identify their opponent until it is too late for them to react. What’s more, their traditional line of defense, designed for taking on visible competitors, is completely unsuited for this type of guerrilla warfare.

To avoid shark attacks, companies will have to go beyond relying on legal remedies. They’ll also need to move away from amassing huge patent portfolios for cross-licensing with competitors; develop smarter, simpler standards and design more-modular components; cooperate earlier with competitors; make sure that functional groups within and among firms share information about shark attacks; and abandon the practice of filing for patents on ever smaller, less significant inventions. In other words, they’re going to have to turn their R&D processes inside out.