Should tech start ups with a sole owner/founder/inventor (patent pending) filing an LLC License or Assign patent rights into the newly formed LLC?

The answer is yes, but it always depends. Let me begin by saying that the more knowhow, etc. involved, the easier it is to sell something without any patent protection. Otherwise, you are trying to sell something without protection and you get no protection until the patent issues, which may take years. The acquirer may just run with it (I would) without licensing knowing there is no cost until your patent issues. Then, when you file, they will see your claims and try to modify their product around your claims. It is slightly vicious in nature. That said, I may not act much different if you file first, unless I can buy your patent or the license costs are very inexpensive. Secondly, many countries have absolute novelty and you will not be able to protect your invention there ever, even if a licensee arises and wants to enter those markets. This too, is a serious limitation for licensing. My conclusion would be that you are underfunded to address your IP and that I can get away with murder. Filing the application is your way of telling people that you are serious. That said, it is not necessary and I have a lot of clients that file later or never file.

The answer: do both. The first thing you need to know about patents is that the U.S. now has a first-inventor-to-file system after the American Invents Act (AIA) went into effect in 2013. I have to disagree with Dan above: for hardware inventions especially, a patent is an important part of the business plan. The first inventor who "races to the patent office" now is typically the winner. This means if you do not file for a patent on your invention, you can lose the rights to your invention much easier than before the AIA. The next step is to think about how a patent fits into your business plan. A patent application is but a tool in your bag when starting up. A crowdsourcing campaign on a site like Indiegogo can validate the idea. But it also puts the idea out to the public and starts the 1-year clock ticking on when you can get a patent. For hardware startups, however, if you're not thinking about a patent upfront -- you're likely leaving a massive amount of your product's value on the table.

I help clients leverage and monetize their patents in a variety of ways. One of the best methods is to attend and exhibit at trade shows in your field. Targeting startups may be one approach, but that's not the only market for your patent. I'd be happy to talk with you about identifying the best trade show and working the direct solicitation angle as well. Let me know when you're ready to get started!

A provisional patent is good for two things. It is a date-stamped proof of invention and gives you time to determine whether to incur the cost of filing a full patent. Yes, so long as the individual component pieces you think are useful are sufficiently described in detail within the one general application, it sets you up to later claim utility patents for any and all of these, providing they really are unique. But in general, I would really caution you from spending time and money to file patents for a software company. I've built many innovative software products over 20 years of work in our industry and only filed one patent in my life, and even that patent is only to protect people from abusing a truly transformative and world-changing technology. That said, a provisional patent is inexpensive and if any expense is going to be incurred here, a catch-all is sufficient if you feel inclined to file anything at all. If your goal is an acquihire or acquisition, utility patents do actually make a difference in the acquirers valuation (at least for now) but if you're thinking about it from an actual defensive perspective, I'd really advise that it's not worth your time (and distraction) and money. The best defence is a great offence. Scale up, get great engagement from users who love your product and you'll be in a much stronger to fight competitors. Lastly, if you do decide to file a provisional patent, don't claim to anyone that you have I.P. You don't. :) Happy to talk through this in a call with you. Best of luck!

The patent process can be fairly expensive (depending on the product and your claims). I went through it over the course of several years (yes, you read that correctly) and it took MUCH longer than anyone projected and cost MUCH more as well. So depending upon your financial situation it might be cost prohibitive to proceed until you secure sufficient capital. Since the implementation of the FITF (aka FIF) system the rules and recommendations that stood for years have shifted. So the general recommendations you may think are good ideas may no longer apply. Know that if you DO decide to file a provisional patent you have 12 months from the date of filing to file a non-provisional patent. And if you make any changes (aka "new matter") you may have to file another provisional patent because you cannot add any new matter to the non-provisional patent. The provisional patent can be a useful tool - but depending upon the product and the strategy you are planning to execute during development and market testing - it may or may not provide the protection you desire. I would highly recommend that you consult with a patent attorney to get an idea about what's involved (i.e. costs, processes, time-frames). At the very least hire a skilled professional to do a patent search FOR you - not only to ensure that it in fact is unique but also to ensure it is "patentable". You may already know this but it's worth repeating: (1) Your fear of your idea of being "stolen" is one that almost every entrepreneur with a "big idea" holds and (2) It's far less likely to happen than you might think. I wish you the best of luck!