I would like to know if there is a company who will pay to buy my patent on a game app

I am a patent attorney generally on the patent owner's side. Signing such a clause should make you nervous. You don't want to be responsible for the major company's infringement. The major company is likely getting more benefit out of using your software than your company is making by selling licenses. The previous gentleman's answer is incorrect. Anyone can be sued for patent infringement if they make, sell, or *use* the claimed invention. It depends on the claims in the asserted patent. Based on experience, it's much more likely that the larger entity would be sued for infringement. A patent infringement case could cost anywhere between $350k-$5M+ USD. http://www.cnet.com/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you/ In order to properly answer your question, I would need to know why you feel it's "very unlikely" that someone would sue the major company for using your software. If the major company won't back down on this provision, the best thing you can do is determine if you need IP (defense) insurance. If a patent attorney determines that it is necessary, raise the price of your license and get IP insurance.

Since you do not have a duty to disclose prior art to the USPTO, you could approach your competitor and try to negotiate a license for their patent pending technology. However, there are two caveats to this approach. First, your competitor does have a duty to disclose prior art to the USPTO. If they learn about the prior art in the course of negotiations with them for a license, they would need to disclose that prior art to the USPTO if the patent has not yet issued. The patent could be declared invalid if they later sued an infringer and it came out during litigation that they did not disclose known prior art. Second, it is much easier to notify the USPTO of this prior art while the patent is pending than after the patent issues. You would only have to pay $180 and would have six months after the application was published to file the prior art with the USPTO (under the new rules of 37 CFR 1.290). The USPTO will only consider written documents, so there would need to be some kind of published document relating to the prior art you found, such as a company brochure showing or describing the feature. I would be happy to assist you with this matter whether you decide to negotiate with your competitor or submit the prior art to the USPTO.

This is a little hard to answer because it is so vague. It depends on the area, the market and the strength of innovation. I know that The App Guy has a terrific podcast at http://www.theappguy.co/ and is also trying to organize a community for App developers to sell their ideas. Let me know if I can be of further assistance to discuss patentability in terms of its value to getting a sale or license. What ever you do, don't spend money filing a full patent, just a provisional. Good luck.

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.

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.