IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/worpat/v32y2010i3p198-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent due diligence: Process and priorities - A Canadian patent attorney's perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Taylor, Euan

Abstract

This article provides a broad-ranging Canadian patent attorney's perspective of the highly challenging area of patent due diligence work and of how to manage the conflicting priorities of a due diligence project. It is suggested that the work be approached in stages, each of which is explored in some depth: 1. Examine the formalities of filings of interest, focus on primary jurisdiction(s) and primary portions of technology, review any key licenses and permissions related to the technology. 2. Carry out an in-depth review of file wrappers; consider whether any opinions are necessary and if so initiate searching; substantively review relevant assignments and employment contracts; expand the scope of investigations to additional filings/jurisdictions as appropriate. 3. Prepare preliminary versions of any opinions, carry out any investigations required to go behind the documentation that has been reviewed. 4. Expand and formalize any opinions as needed; carry out or request any remediation that may be appropriate; finalise any reporting letters that may be required.

Suggested Citation

  • Taylor, Euan, 2010. "Patent due diligence: Process and priorities - A Canadian patent attorney's perspective," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 198-202, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:worpat:v:32:y:2010:i:3:p:198-202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0172-2190(09)00092-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:worpat:v:32:y:2010:i:3:p:198-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/654/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.