Author: Kenneth Pearce

Patent Enablement and the Supreme Court's Ruling

Patent Enablement

Patent Enablement

What is “Patent Enablement” and is it required to procure a Patent?

For a Patent to be valid, the Patent’s Specification shall, “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.”

-35 United States Code 112(a)

Defendants in a patent infringement suit can argue that the Patent is invalid because it does not enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention claimed. In short, the Patent is missing Patent enablement.

What the US Supreme Court Says About Patent Enablement

The United States Supreme Court Revisits Patent Enablement in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al (May 18, 2023)

Justice Gorsuch delivered a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court.

On pages 5-6, the Court writes:

“The case comes to us this way. Several years ago, petitioners (Amgen) obtained two patents. Together, these patents claim a monopoly over all antibodies that (1) bind to specific amino acids on a naturally occurring protein known as PCSK9, and (2) block PCSK9 from impairing the body’s mechanism for removing LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream. Soon after receiving these patents, Amgen sued respondents (Sanofi) for infringement. In response, Sanofi argued that the patents were invalid under §112 of the Patent Act. That provision requires a patent applicant to describe its invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention].” 35 U. S. C. §112(a). Sanofi contended that Amgen’s patents failed to meet this standard because they sought to claim for Amgen’s exclusive use potentially millions more antibodies than the company had taught scientists to make. In the end, both the district court and Federal Circuit sided with Sanofi. The question we face is whether to disturb their judgment.”

On pages 9-10 of Amgen, it is written:

“As part of its submission to the patent office, Amgen identified the amino acid sequences of 26 antibodies that perform these two functions, and it depicted the three-dimensional structures of two of these 26 antibodies. 987 F.3d, at 1083. But beyond that, Amgen only offered scientists two methods to make other antibodies that perform the binding and blocking functions it described. The first method is what Amgen calls the “roadmap.” Brief for Petitioners 13. At a high level, the roadmap directs scientists to: (1) generate a range of antibodies in the lab; (2) test those antibodies to determine whether any bind to PCSK9; (3) test those antibodies that bind to PCSK9 to determine whether any bind to the sweet spot as described in the claims; and (4) test those antibodies that bind to the sweet spot as described in the claims to determine whether any block PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors. See id., at 13-14. The second method is what Amgen calls “conservative substitution.” Id., at 14, 17. This technique requires scientists to: (1) start with an antibody known to perform the described functions; (2) replace select amino acids in the antibody with other amino acids known to have similar properties; and (3) test the resulting antibody to see if it also performs the described functions. See id., at 14-15. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 19, the Court wrote:

“Decisions such as Wood and Minerals Separation establish that a specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. See Minerals Separation, 242 U.S., at 270-271; see also Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620, 644 (1872) (“[T]he definiteness of a specification must vary with the nature of its subject. Addressed as it is to those skilled in the art, it may leave something to their skill in applying the invention.”). But in allowing that much tolerance, courts cannot detract from the basic statutory requirement that a patent’s specification describe the invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art” to “make and use” the invention. §112(a). Judges may no more subtract from the requirements for obtaining a patent that Congress has prescribed than they may add to them. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602-603, 612 (2010). Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 20, Justice Gorsuch concluded:

“While the technology at the heart of this case is thoroughly modern, from the law’s perspective Amgen’s claims bear more than a passing resemblance to those this Court faced long ago in Morse, Incandescent Lamp, and Holland Furniture. Amgen seeks to monopolize an entire class of things defined by their function-every antibody that both binds to particular areas of the sweet spot of PCSK9 and blocks PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors. The record reflects that this class of antibodies does not include just the 26 that Amgen has described by their amino acid sequences, but a “vast” number of additional antibodies that it has not. 987 F.3d, at 1085, 1088; see 2019 WL 4058927, *8 (“at least millions of candidates”); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 52-53. Much as Morse sought to claim all telegraphic forms of communication, Sawyer and Man sought to claim all fibrous and textile materials for incandescence, and Perkins sought to claim all starch glues that work as well as animal glue for wood veneering, Amgen seeks to claim “sovereignty over [an] entire kingdom” of antibodies. Incandescent Lamp, 159 U.S., at 476.”

“That poses Amgen with a challenge. For if our cases teach anything, it is that the more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable. That holds true whether the case involves telegraphs devised in the 19th century, glues invented in the 20th, or antibody treatments developed in the 21st. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 23, Justice Gorsuch held:

“Section 112 of the Patent Act reflects Congress’s judgment that if an inventor claims a lot, but enables only a little, the public does not receive its benefit of the bargain. For more than 150 years, this Court has enforced the statutory enablement requirement according to its terms. If the Court had not done so in Incandescent Lamp, it might have been writing decisions like Holland Furniture in the dark. Today’s case may involve a new technology, but the legal principle is the same. The judgment is Affirmed.”

If you find this a little complex and need assistance to make sure your Patent meets the Patent enablement requirement, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact us.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Copyright Rules Regulations and Frustrations

Copyright Applications

Copyright Applications

This blog is an expansion of BPL’s July 9, 2020 blog on Copyright Registrations in an effort to further help you understand the copyright process.

It Can Be Complex

The process of applying for a Copyright Registration, according to the United States Code, is as follows:

To procure US Copyright Registrations, the creator/owner of the original work(s) of authorship must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. 17 United States Code 102.

Simplifying The Code

Let’s consider that statement in normal-speak instead of legalese.

  • The “creator/owner” can be self explanatory, as is the “original work.”
  • Depending on circumstances, the creator is not always the owner.
  • “Authorship” means somebody needs to create the original work.
  • The “tangible medium of expression” can be anything from a physical copy of the work, such as a book or a painting, to a digital copy, such as a computer file or an online video.

With that information, you now know that once there’s a copy of the work (tangible medium of expression), you as the creator/owner will need to file a Copyright Application with the Copyright Office to procure a Copyright Registration.

Benefits Of A Copyright Registration

The application must include information about the work, such as the title, the author, and the date of creation. Once the application is filed, the Copyright Office may issue a Copyright Registration. They usually do, but not always. Also, Copyright Registration is not required to secure a Copyright, but it does provide a number of benefits, including the ability to sue in federal court for Copyright infringement and statutory damages.

Selecting The Correct Copyright Application Form May Not Be Straight Forward

You didn’t expect anything at the Copyright Office to be simple or easy did you? There are different types of authorships which  require different Copyright Office paper forms or digital portals.

Principal Categories of Copyright Applications

  • Literary Works
  • Performing Arts
  • Visual Arts
  • Motion Pictures
  • Digital Works not otherwise categorized
  • Photographs

Copyright Office Forms/Digital Portals

Literary Works (Fiction, Non-Fiction, Poetry, Articles, Periodicals)

  • Literary Work (Form TX)
  • Serial Publications (Form SE)
  • Form CON

Performing Arts (Music, Lyrics, Sound Records, Scripts, Stage Plays)

  • Works of the Performing Arts (Form PA)
  • Sound Recordings (Form SR)
  • Form CON

Visual Arts (Artwork, Illustrations, Jewelry, Fabric, Architecture)

  • Visual Arts Work (Form VA)
  • Form CON

Motion Pictures (Movies, TV Shows, Video Games, Animation, Videos)

  • Works of the Performing Arts (Form PA)
  • Form CON

Group Copyright Applications

1. Group Registration for Works on an Album of Music (GRAM) –

Group Registration of musical works, recordings, photos, artwork and liner notes that are published on the same album

2. Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works (GRTX) –

  • Digital Works not otherwise categorized (Computer Programs, Databases, Blogs, Websites)
  • Group Registration of Published Photographs
  • Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works

3. Group Registration of Unpublished Works (GRUW) –

  • Photographs (News Photographs, Selfies, Wedding Photographs, Family Photographs)
  • Photographic Databases

If you want to secure a copyright on your original works and need assistance filing your Copyright Applications, contact BPL we would be happy to handle this task for you.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like us to address in the blog, please send us an email.

We provide intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Restriction Requirement for Patents

Restriction Requirement

What Our Company Did

We are a start-up existing on a shoe string budget.

An inventor not associated with our company invented a product.  Because our company expected the product would improve our bottom line, we opted to take a license from the inventor to make and sell the product.

Apparently, to save legal fees, the inventor opted to represent himself before the USPTO. Unfortunately, about two years after filing the Patent Application, the inventor received a Restriction Requirement from the USPTO.

What do we do now?

What is a Restriction Requirement?

Title 35 United States Code 121 – Restriction Requirement

35 U.S.C. 121 reads:

“If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.”

35 U.S.C. 121 prevents a tribunal from using the first Application and/or first Patent from which the second Application was divided from being used to reject the claims of the second Application and/or subsequent second Patent.

Restriction Requirement – How The Inventor Can Respond

In the Restriction Requirement, the Examiner will argue something like, “The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species.  In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.”  Generally, the Examiner will suggest groupings of claims from which the Applicant can select a single group of claims for first examination.

An Applicant has an opportunity to argue against the Restriction Requirement by stating that the species are patentably indistinct.  However, this can be a risky strategy.  Such an admission can be used to reject the second species of claims as obvious in view of the first species of claims and other prior art.  In other words, the claims can be rejected as obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103.

The Better Strategy When Responding to a Restriction Requirement

When the Examiner argues for a Restriction Requirement, the Applicant can elect an invention for first prosecution.

In most instances, the better strategy for the Applicant is to elect one of the Examiner’s groupings claims for first prosecution. During prosecution, the scope of the claims can be expanded by amendment. Frequently, after the examination of the first grouping of claims, Applicant’s will file a Divisional Application including additional claims related to the invention.

Responding to a Restriction Requirement can be tricky. If you need assistance responding to a Restriction Requirement, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent Offices are Different

Not All Patent Offices are the Same

Patent Offices around the world will likely have different rules of practice.  In other words, how you obtain your Patent can require different legal procedures and strategies.

Patent Office Characteristics

  • The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application, a Continuation Application, a Continuation-in-Part Application and/or a Divisional Application.
  • The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application or Divisional Application.
  • The European Patent Office (EPO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application or Divisional Application.

Types of Patent Applications

  • A Divisional Application is a Patent Application that is “divided out” from an Original Patent Application.
  • A Continuation Application is a Patent Application that claims priority to a prior pending Patent Application where the new Continuation Application is filed before the prior Pending Patent Application is patented. A Continuation Application is supported by the Specification and Drawings of the prior pending Patent Application.
  • A Continuation-in-Part Application is a Patent Application that claims priority to a prior pending Patent Application where the new Continuation-in-Part Patent Application is filed before the prior Pending Patent Application is patented. A Continuation-in-Part Application includes “new matter” that was in included with the Specification and/or Drawings of the prior pending Patent Application.
  • Divisional Patent Applications, Continuation Patent Application and Continuation-in-Part Patent Applications can be utilized by the owner to extend the scope of the Patent’s limited monopoly.

The Scenario

Our Louisville company filed original Patent Applications for the “gadget” in the USPTO, the CIPO, the EPO and other Patent Offices around the globe. After filing the Patent Applications, our engineering department invented our new and improved “gadget” that was similar to but slightly different than the original “gadget.”  Management decided to file additional Patent Applications claiming the improved “gadget.”

Potential Patent Offices’ Strategies

United States – USPTO

In the United States, your company could file any of the above Patent Applications for the improved “gadget.”

According to 37 C.F.R. 1.53, “a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c).”

European Union – EPO

The only potential option in the EPO is to file a Divisional Patent Application.  However, your improved “gadget” claims would only be allowed by the EPO if you can meet the conditions of EPO Rule 3.1.

EPO Rule 3.1 – Replacement or Removal of Features from a Claim 

“The requirements of Art. 123(2) are only met if the replacement or removal of a feature lies within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing (or the date of priority according to Art. 89, from the whole of the application documents G 3/89, G 11/91 and G 2/10).

Art. 123(2)

If the amendment by replacing or removing a feature from a claim fails to pass the following test by at least one criterion, it necessarily contravenes the requirements of Art. 123(2):

(i)      the replaced or removed feature was not explained as essential in the originally filed disclosure;

(ii)     the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognize that the feature is not, as such, indispensable for the function of the invention in the light of the technical problem the invention serves to solve (in this context special care needs to be taken in cases where the technical problem is reformulated during the proceedings, see H-V, 2.4 and G-VII, 11); and

(iii)    the skilled person would recognize that the replacement or removal requires no modification of one or more features to compensate for the change (it does not in itself alter the invention).”

Thus, in the EPO, it is unlikely than an Applicant can meet the strict conditions of Art. 123(2) for an allowable amendment to the claims of a European Divisional Patent Application.

Need Help With Your Patent Application?

If your company needs assistance with filing Patent Applications in United States and foreign jurisdictions, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, we are here to help.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Mask Mark Protection

What are Mask Works?

Mask Works are a type of intellectual property created by the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA) of 1984.

Statutory Mask Works rights are set forth in Title 17 United States Code §§ 901-914. In general, the SCPA allows for the protection of the combination of a mask and a semiconductor chip.

Some Requirements for and Rights associated with Intellectual Property Protection of Mask Works

  • A mask work must be a series of related images, however fixed or encoded (1) that have or represent the predetermined three dimensional pattern of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip product; and (2) in which series the relation of the images to one another is that each image has the pattern of the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.
  • A semiconductor chip product is defined as the final or intermediate form of any product (1) intended to perform electronic circuitry functions and (2) having two or more layers of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material, deposited or otherwise placed on or etched away or otherwise removed from a piece of semiconductor material in accordance with a predetermined pattern.
  • The Registration of the Mask Work is effective on the date of the Registration or the date the Mask Work is first commercially exploited anywhere in the world by an owner as defined in 17 United States Code § 902.
  • A Registration of the Mask Work is effective for ten years. However, to secure protection of the Mask for the entire 10-year term, the owner must register the work with the Copyright Office within two years of the date on which the Mask work is first commercially exploited or the potential protection will be lost.
  • 17 United States Code § 905 reads, “The owner of a Mask Work provided protection under this chapter has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the Mask Work by optical, electronic, or any other means; (2) to import or distribute a semiconductor chip product in which the Mask Work is embodied; and (3) to induce or knowingly to cause another person to do any of the acts described in paragraphs (1) and (2).”

Limitations of Owner’s Rights

  • Protection is not available for a Mask Work that is not original or consists of designs that are staple, commonplace, or familiar in the semiconductor industry, or variations of such designs, combined in a way that, considered as a whole, is not original.
  • It is not an infringement of the exclusive rights of the owner of a Mask Work for— (1) a person to reproduce the Mask Work solely for the purpose of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the concepts or techniques embodied in the Mask Work or the circuitry, logic flow, or organization of components used in the Mask Work; or (2) a person who performs the analysis or evaluation described in paragraph (1) to incorporate the results of such conduct in an original Mask Work which is made to be distributed. 17 United States Code § 906.
  • An innocent purchaser of an infringing semiconductor chip product — (1) shall incur no liability under this chapter with respect to the importation or distribution of units of the infringing semiconductor chip product that occurs before the innocent purchaser has notice of protection with respect to the Mask Work embodied in the semiconductor chip product and (2) shall be liable only for a reasonable royalty on each unit of the infringing semi­conductor chip product that the innocent purchaser imports or distributes after having notice of protection with respect to the Mask Work embodied in the semiconductor chip product. 17 United States Code § 907.

Mask Work Notice

  • The notice shall consist of— “(1) the words “Mask Work”, the symbol *M*, or the symbol Ⓜ (the letter M in a circle); and (2) the name of the owner or owners of the Mask Work or an abbreviation by which the name is recognized or is generally known.” 17 United States Code § 909.

If your company needs assistance with registration of Mask Works, please contact BPL.

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question for Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Sound Trademarks

Sound Trademarks

Sound Trademarks

Will the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) register Sound Trademarks or Service Marks?  Yes.

“Sensory”  Trademarks or Service Marks including sounds, odors, and colors can be the subject matter for US Applications for Registration in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  In other words, sensory Marks can serve as an indicator of the source of the goods or services.

 Examples of Sound Trademarks and Service Mark Registrations

Click  to hear the Sound Trademark or Service Mark.

The Criterion for registration of Sensory Marks

The Criterion for registration of Sensory Marks is identical to Non-Sensory Trademarks. Title 15 of the United States Code, in part, reads:

  • 1052 – Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless —

Examples of situations that prevent registration are:

      • Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof
      • Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow
      • Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
      • Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, (4) is primarily merely a surname, or (5) comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional

 

  • 1053. Service marks registrable

Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, service marks shall be registrable, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks. Applications and procedures under this section shall conform as nearly as practicable to those prescribed for the registration of trademarks.

Do You Need a Sound Trademark?

Trademark/Service Mark Applications can become complicated. If your company needs cost-efficient assistance with the filing of a sound Trademark/Service Mark, please contact us.

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact us. We will be happy to assist you.

If you want to stay up-to-date with news that may impact your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

International Intent to Use Application

Intent to Use Application – Multiclass

What is an Intent to Use Application?

When the goods or services are yet to be used in commerce, clients may opt to file Intent to Use Applications.  The Intent to Use Trademark/Service Mark Application establishes a “constructive” date of first use with the grant of the Registration. Having this date formally established and recorded can benefit the Applicant/Owner of the Mark in situations where there are conflicts between competing Applications for Registration.

Filing a Multi-International Class Intent to Use Application

There are forty-five (45) International Classifications of goods and services. The USPTO requires a filing fee for each International class in which the Applicant intends to use the goods or services. International Classes 1-34 apply to goods and International Classes 35-45 apply to services. Applicants can file a Trademark/Service Mark Application for the same – MARK – in one or more International Classes.

The Scenario: A Case Study

Our company filed a multiclass Application for our – MARK – in International Classes 1 (chemicals), 6 (pharmaceuticals), 10 (medical apparatus), 29 (staple foods) and 44 (medical services).

In due course, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance for International Classes 1 (chemicals), 6 (pharmaceuticals), 10 (medical apparatus), 29 (staple foods) and 44 (medical services).

Within six months after the Notice of Allowance, the Applicant must file a Statement of Use for the – MARK – for each International Class before the Registration for that International Class will be granted.

Past The Six-Month Deadline?

For an International Class, if the Applicant has not used the – MARK – in interstate/international commerce before the expiration of the sixth month period, the Applicant can file a Request for an Extension of Time in Which to File a Statement of Use. The Request for an Extension of Time in Which to File a Statement of Use grants the Applicant an additional six-month period to file a Statement of Use for an International Class.

How Many Extensions?

Under Title 15 of the United States Code, an Applicant may file a maximum of five Requests for an Extension of Time in Which to File a Statement of Use.  If a Statement of Use is not filed for an International Class within the maximum statutory time limit, the Application for Registration will go abandoned for that International Class and the Applicant must file a new Application for Registration of the – MARK –.

NOTE: Some International Classes of goods/services require government agency approval before those goods and services can be used in interstate/international commerce.

For the company’s – MARK –, we were able to establish interstate/international use:

  • For International Class 29 (staple foods), the company filed a Statement of Use during the first Request for an Extension of Time to file a Statement of Use and received a Registration.
  • For International Class 44 (medical services), the company filed a Statement of use during the second Request for an Extension of Time and received a Registration.
  • For International Class 1 (chemicals), the company filed a Statement of use during the third Request for an Extension of Time and received a Registration.
  • Due to lack of FDA approval, the company could not establish intrastate/international use of the – MARK – for International Classes 6 (pharmaceuticals) and 10 (medical apparatus) and the Application went abandoned for International Classes 6 and 10.

BPL’s Observations

Although a multiclass Application can be divided after filing, it is usually more cost-efficient for a company to file an Application for each International Class 1 (chemicals), 6 (pharmaceuticals), 10 (medical apparatus), 29 (staple foods) and 44 (medical services), i.e., file five Applications for Registration rather than a single multi-class Application.

The time of filing an Intent to Use Application is critical for most businesses.

Trademark/Service Mark situations can become complicated. If your company needs cost-efficient assistance with filing for Trademarks/Service Marks, please contact BPL.

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, we are here to assist you.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent rights transfer around the world - Patent Rights

Patent Assignments

What are Patent Assignments?

What is a patent assignment? In general, a Patent Assignment transfers ownership of the entire patent right, title, and interest owned by one party to a second party.

Patent Assignments are a type of contract between the Assignor (current holder) of Patent rights and the Assignee (new owner) of Patent rights. Recording an executed Assignment in the Patent Offices gives notice of the change in the Patent owner.

Recording ownership of a Patent is similar to recording a deed for real property — like your house. The recording of the deed to your house gives notice of your current ownership and specifies the location of that home in the State. Recording a Patent Assignment gives notice of ownership and the location of your intangible Patent rights.

National and Regional Patent Offices

The European Patent Office is a regional Patent Office and the Japanese and United States Patent Offices are national Patent Offices.

Each national or regional jurisdiction has specific formats and rules associated with recording the ownership of Patent rights. European, Japanese, and United States Patent Offices have required wording and procedures for recording an Assignment in the European, Japanese, or United States Patent Office.

  • For an English language Assignment of Patent Rights, the Japanese Patent Office will accept a Japanese/English bilingual Assignment to record.
  • The European Patent Office will accept an English, French, or German language Assignment. After the European Patent is granted, assignments of the Validations of the European Patent are required in most member states’ Patent Offices where the current owner asserts the European Patent’s rights.
  • The USPTO accepts English language Assignments. (Non-English Assignments must be translated/transliterated into English.)

Patent Applications

Assignments of Patent Applications can also be recorded in Patent Offices. Each jurisdiction will have different rules for recording ownership of Patent Applications. In the United States, when the US Patent Application issues as a US Patent, the ownership of the Patent Application applies to the US Patent until the ownership is assigned to another person/entity.

35 United States Code (U.S.C) 261 Ownership; assignment, reads:

“Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. The Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain a register of interests in patents and applications for patents and shall record any document related thereto upon request, and may require a fee therefor.

Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.

A certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States, or, in a foreign country, of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or an officer authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States, shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.

An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.”

For Assignments of US Patents and US Patent Applications – because of 35 U.S.C. (U.S.C) 261, Business Patent Law, PLLC advises its clients:

  • In the United States to execute Assignments of Patents or Patent Applications before a notary public.
  • In a jurisdiction other than the United States, to execute the Assignments before the appropriate apostille.

Assignments can become complicated. If your company needs assistance with its Patent Assignments, please contact BPL.

Are you or your business located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville areas? Do you have a topic or question you would like us to address in the blog? Please send us an email!

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you want to stay up-to-date with the news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

The Hague

The European Patent

How to Get a European Patent

Can you get a European Patent on a product designed in the United States? Yes. Can Business Patent Law assist you with that patent application? Absolutely! Here are a few things you need to know about overseas patent applications, to better understand the process.

European Patent Applications

  • Applicants can file European Patent Applications (EPA) via the European Patent Convention.
  • Applicants can file EPAs via the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Locations of the European Patent Office (EPO) for filing EPAs

  • Munich Germany is the principal office of the EPO. Other EPO offices are in Berlin, Brussels, The Hague, and Vienna.
  • Your EPA can be filed at any location of the EPO.

Professionals (Licensed by the EPO) Represent BPL’s Clients before the EPO

  • Business Patent Law (BPL) has foreign associates around the globe ready to represent BPL’s clients before various foreign Patent Offices.
  • In Europe, BPL has associate European Patent Attorneys licensed by the EPO to represent clients before the EPO.
  • BPL works closely with European associates to monitor and assist with the evolution of the EPA toward the grant of the European Patent(s).

Following Examination EPAs are Denied or Granted

  • After examination by the Examination Division of the EPO; if the Examination Division concludes that the EPA is patentable, the post-examination EPA is published.
  • On the date of publication of the post-examination EPA, the European Patent is granted.
  • The European Patent is a “bundle” of individual member states’ National Patents.

Validation of the European Patent (EP) Required in each Designated Member State

  • After the grant of the European Patent, it must be validated in the designated member states.
  • Among other things, validation requires payment of designated member state’s fees and providing translations or transliterations of the Patent if that state does not accept the validation in one of the three official languages of the EPO.

Official Languages of the EPO

  • English
  • French
  • German

Oppositions Against the Granted EP

For a period of nine months subsequent to the grant of the Patent, a third party can institute an Opposition Proceeding against the EP.  In Opposition Proceedings, filed before the Oppositions Division of the EPO, third parties argue against the patentability of the granted EP.

Member Nations of the EPO – 2022

Member Nation                                                                         EPO Member Since

AL Albania 1 May 2010
AT Austria 1 May 1979
BE Belgium 7 October 1977
BG Bulgaria 1 July 2002
CH Switzerland 7 October 1977
CY Cyprus 1 April 1998
CZ Czech Republic 1 July 2002
DE Germany 7 October 1977
DK Denmark 1 January 1990
EE Estonia 1 July 2002
ES Spain 1 October 1986
FI Finland 1 March 1996
FR France 7 October 1977
GB United Kingdom 7 October 1977
GR Greece 1 October 1986
HR Croatia 1 January 2008
HU Hungary 1 January 2003
IE Ireland 1 August 1992
IS Iceland 1 November 2004
IT Italy 1 December 1978
LI Liechtenstein 1 April 1980
LT Lithuania 1 December 2004
LU Luxembourg 7 October 1977
LV Latvia 1 July 2005
MC Monaco 1 December 1991
MK North Macedonia 1 January 2009
MT Malta 1 March 2007
NL Netherlands 7 October 1977
NO Norway 1 January 2008
PL Poland 1 March 2004
PT Portugal 1 January 1992
RO Romania 1 March 2003
RS Serbia 1 October 2010
SE Sweden 1 May 1978
SI Slovenia 1 December 2002
SK Slovakia 1 July 2002
SM San Marino 1 July 2009
TR Turkey 1 November 2000

Need a European Patent?

If your company needs assistance with European or other foreign jurisdictions’ Patent Applications, we can help.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Do you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog? Please send us an email.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

capital gains on patents

Capital Gains – Intellectual Properties  

Capital Gains May Be Available For The Transfer Of Intellectual Property Rights

A capital gains tax rate for the transfer of Intellectual Property is available if the transfer of Intellectual Property rights is carefully planned.

Patent Rights are not Accorded Capital Gains Status – Unless…

26 I.R.C. 1221 – Capital Asset, in part, reads:

(a)    In General

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include –

…(3) a patent, invention, model or design (whether or not patented), a secret formula or process, a copyright, a literary, a musical/artistic composition, a letter or memorandum, or similar property, held by—

                    (A)    a taxpayer whose personal efforts created such property,

                    (B)    in the case of a letter, memorandum, or similar property, a taxpayer for whom such property was prepared or produced, or

                    (C)    a taxpayer in whose hands the basis of such property is determined, for purposes of determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or part by reference to the basis of such property in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A) or (B)

Situation 1 – Patent Capital Asset

Joe was the founder of his company JoeCo. Over the years, Joe was the inventor of several Patents for the products sold by JoeCo. After 40 years in business, Joe was seeking buyers for JoeCo. AcquireCo purchased JoeCo and all assets and liabilities.

Joe can treat this transfer of Patent rights as a capital asset because the U.S. Internal Revenue code also includes 26 I.R.C. 1235. When specific facts exist, the inventor’s Patents are capital assets taxed as capital gains.

26 I.R.C. 1235 – Sale or Exchange of Patent, in part, reads:

(a)    General    A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 1 year, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are—

                     (1)     payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee’s use of the patent, or

                     (2)    contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.

(b)    “Holder” defined For purposes of this section, the term “holder” means—

                    (1)     any individual whose efforts created such property, or

                    (2)    any other individual who has acquired his interest in such property in exchange for consideration in money or money’s worth paid to such creator prior to actual reduction to practice of the invention covered by the patent, if such individual is neither—

                    (A)    the employer of such creator, nor

                    (B)    related to such creator (within the meaning of subsection (c)).

Situation 2 – Intellectual Property Gains

Jill was a seamstress with talent for making and selling clothing designs that generated a comfortable living for her family. Jill was a sole proprietor and over the years received two Trademark Registrations for Jill’sThings®. After 40 years, Jill sold her business to AcquiringJack, LLC with a knack for scaling small businesses. 26 I.R.C. 1221 does not prevent Jill’sThings® from being classified as capital assets. Therefore, the sale of Jill’sThings® would be treated as capital gains.

Situation 3 – Patent Capital Asset

AcquiringJack, LLC purchased all rights associated with two JoeCo Patents previously sold to a third party. AcquiringJack LLC held the JoeCo Patents for 18 months and sold the JoeCo Patents to LastMinuteCharlie, Inc. AcquiringJack, LLC’s sale of the JoeCo Patents will be treated as capital gains.

Situation 4 – No Capital Gains

Second Fiddle was an individual who was a skilled guitarist and sufficiently talented to write original music. Over the years, Second Fiddle had received Copyright Registrations for some of his musical compositions. While on a regional tour with his band, the Fiddlers, a vice president of Big Break Inc. made Second Fiddle an offer he could not turn down for his Copyright Registrations.  Second Fiddle sold his Copyright Registrations to Big Break Inc. According to 26 I.R.C. 1221, a Copyright or musical score held by the creator is not a capital asset. Second Fiddle’s sale was taxed as ordinary income.

Situation 5 – Intellectual Property Capital Gains

Philharmonic Violin was an individual who played third violin with the orchestra. Although not as musically skilled as some other violinists in the orchestra, Philharmonic Violin wrote a few concertos and was granted some Copyrights for her efforts. Philharmonic Violin assigned her Copyrights to her company, Concertos LLC. On her lucky day, Philharmonic Violin arrived early for practice and was playing some of the supporting violin portions of her concertos. Big Director, the CEO of his production company, heard the portions of Philharmonic Violin’s concertos and told Philharmonic Violin that they were perfect for the score of one of his films. On that day, Big Director wrote a check payable to Concertos LLC. Because Concertos LLC rather than Philharmonic Violin received the payment, the payment will be taxed as a capital asset.

Business Patent Law, PLLC does not provide tax counsel. The above situations are only illustrative. Changes in the facts of a taxable situation can generate different applications of Title 26 Internal Revenue Code. Advance planning for taxable situations can reduce the amount of taxes paid. For tax advice, please contact your tax advisor.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.