Artificial Intelligence and Patents

Inventions: Artificial Intelligence and Patents

Human Conception not Artificial Intelligence

Following the landmark Thaler v. Vidal ruling and the Revised Inventorship Guidance issued in late 2025, the USPTO has clarified that AI systems—no matter how autonomous—cannot be named as inventors. The law recognizes AI as an instrument of innovation, analogous to a microscope or a CAD program, rather than a “natural person” capable of conception.

The Threshold: Human Conception not AI

To secure a patent, at least one human must have made a significant contribution to the invention’s conception. Under the current framework, “conception” is the “touchstone of inventorship.” It requires a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention in a human mind.

What Does NOT Count as Human Inventorship:

  • Simple Prompting: Asking an AI to “design a more efficient battery” is considered identifying a problem, not conceiving a solution.
  • Ownership: Simply owning the AI or the data it was trained on does not grant you inventorship rights over its outputs.
  • Verification: Merely recognizing that an AI output is “clever” or “useful” (without further modification) is generally insufficient.

How to Protect AI-Assisted Innovations

To ensure your IP stands up to USPTO scrutiny and future litigation, businesses should adopt three “Safe Harbor” practices:

  1. Document the Prompt Engineering: Maintain logs of the specific, technical constraints and iterative instructions provided to the AI. This demonstrates that a human was “steering” the creative process.
  2. Focus on Human Refinement: The strongest patent claims often come from what a human does after the AI provides an output—testing, modifying, and integrating that output into a practical application.
  3. Audit Your Disclosures: Ensure your patent counsel understands exactly where the AI’s work ended and the human’s work began. Misstating inventorship can lead to the total invalidation of a patent down the road.

Human Conception not AI

Artificial Intelligence can accelerate your speed-to-market, but it cannot hold legal rights. At Business Patent Law, PLLC, we help companies navigate these new boundaries.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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 Applications Unlock Innovation

Patent Applications Unlock Innovation

💡 Patent Applications Unlock Innovation

Patent applications unlock innovation and are one of the most crucial steps an innovator can take to protect an invention and secure its commercial future. It’s more than just paperwork; it’s a strategic business asset that offers significant advantages to individuals and companies alike.

🛡️ Patent Applications Unlock Future Exclusionary Rights

The primary and most powerful benefit of a patent is the exclusive right it grants to the inventor/owner for a limited time. In the United States, that time is 20 years from the first nonprovisional patent application.

  • Preventing Infringement: A granted patent allows you to stop others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the invention without your permission. This legal monopoly is the bedrock for successful commercialization.
  • Controlling the Market: You gain the power to set prices and control the supply of your patented product or process in the marketplace, which can lead to substantial financial returns.

💰 Patent Applications Unlock Potential Value

A patent transforms an idea into a tangible, valuable business asset that can be leveraged for growth. Some patent applications are exceptional and have value before the patent is granted. Multiple patent applications can unlock the next generation of assets.

  • Licensing and Royalties: You can license the patent to others, generating a steady stream of royalty income without having to manufacture or market the product yourself.
  • Attracting Investment: Patents signal to investors and venture capitalists that your technology is novel and legally protected, making your company a safer and more attractive investment opportunity.
  • Standalone Sale: The owner of the patent can sell to patent to the highest bidder.
  • Increased Company Valuation: For startups and established firms, a robust patent portfolio increases the company’s net worth and provides a stronger position during mergers and acquisitions (M&A).

🚀 Strategic and Competitive Edge

Beyond immediate financial gain, a patent provides a vital competitive advantage in the business landscape.

  • Competitive Deterrent: The existence of the patent can deter competitors from entering your market space, saving costs and headaches of future litigation.
  • Defensive Protection: Patents can also be used defensively. If a competitor sues for infringement, your company’s patents can be used as counter-leverage in negotiations.
  • Public Recognition: The patent document provides public recognition of inventorship, enhancing your company’s reputation as a leader in innovation and technology.

The Takeaway

Don’t leave valuable innovation exposed! Filing a patent application is an essential investment that secures enforceable rights, enhances financial prospects, and a businesses potential for long-term success.  And exceptional patent applications unlock royalty streams before the patent issues.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

What is a sensory trademark

Exploring the World of Sensory Marks

What are Sensory Marks?

When you think of a brand, what comes to mind? Likely a name, a logo, or perhaps a catchy slogan. These are the traditional trademarks we encounter every day. But in our increasingly immersive world, brands are engaging our senses in entirely new ways, leading to the rise of Sensory Marks.

Sensory Marks are a fascinating category of non-traditional trademarks that appeal to our senses beyond just sight. While challenging to register, they offer powerful ways to distinguish your brand.

Sensory Sound Marks 🎶

This is perhaps the most recognized category of sensory marks. A sound mark is a distinct sound that identifies the source of goods or services. Think of iconic audio cues like the Netflix “Tudum,” the MGM lion’s roar, or the Intel Inside jingle. These sounds aren’t just background noise; they instantly connect you to a brand.

  • Key Challenge: The sound must be inherently distinctive or have acquired distinctiveness through extensive use. Common sounds (like a standard phone ring) are generally not registrable.

Sensory Scent Marks 👃

Imagine walking into a store and recognizing the brand solely by its unique fragrance. A scent mark uses a specific smell to identify goods or services. These are extremely difficult to register due to the subjective nature of smell and the challenge of consistently reproducing a scent. However, successful examples exist, such as the smell of Play-Doh for “modeling compound.”

  • Key Challenge: Describing the scent accurately and demonstrating its non-functional, source-identifying nature is crucial.

Sensory Taste Marks 👅

While incredibly rare, a taste mark would involve a specific, non-functional taste that serves as a brand identifier. The hurdle here is immense: taste is intimately linked with the product itself (e.g., you can’t trademark the taste of an orange for oranges). For a taste to function as a mark, it would likely need to be a unique and arbitrary taste for a product that doesn’t inherently have that taste.

  • Key Challenge: Proving distinctiveness and non-functionality, especially given the inherent functionality of taste in food and beverages.

Motion Marks 🎬

While not strictly a “Sensory Mark” in the same vein as sound or scent (as it relies on visual perception), motion marks are often discussed alongside them as non-traditional marks. These are short animations or sequences of movements that act as a brand identifier. Think of the distinct opening animation of a movie studio’s logo or a specific digital animation that signals a brand.

  • Key Challenge: Clearly defining the sequence of movements and demonstrating its use as a source identifier.

Color Marks (as applied to an entire product) 🎨

Again, strictly visual but often grouped with non-traditional marks due to their unique nature. While a logo containing a color is traditional, a color mark protects a specific color as applied to an entire product or its packaging, acting as a source identifier. Iconic examples include Tiffany Blue for jewelry boxes or UPS Brown for delivery services.

  • Key Challenge: Proving that consumers associate the color alone with the brand, not just as an aesthetic choice. This usually requires significant evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

The Future of Sensory Branding

As technology advances and consumer experiences become more sophisticated, we anticipate even more innovative ways brands will seek to connect with audiences through sensory engagement. Protecting these unique brand assets requires a nuanced understanding of intellectual property law.

If your business is creating a distinctive sensory experience, reach out to Business Patent Law, PLLC. We can help you explore whether your unique brand elements qualify for trademark protection and guide you through the complexities of non-traditional mark registration.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Operating Agreement

Operating Agreement? Yes, From Day One!

Why LLCs Need a Strong Operating Agreement From Day One

Starting a new venture, especially one built on your great invention or idea, is exciting! You’ve filed your Articles of Organization with the State, and your Limited Liability Company (LLC) is officially born. It’s tempting to jump straight into selling your “widget” and chasing those initial sales.

But here’s a crucial lesson many successful (and struggling) founders learn the hard way: Skipping the Operating Agreement is like building a skyscraper without blueprints. As a small intellectual property firm, we see how often this oversight leads to painful, expensive conflicts later.

Even the simplest “garage-type” startup can quickly explode into a multi-million-dollar international company. When that happens, relying on faulty human memory and vague understandings is a recipe for disaster among the founders. A well-drafted Operating Agreement is the essential legal document that guides your LLC, protects your IP, and makes the road to achieving your business goals much smoother.

Your Operating Agreement: The Blueprint for Success

Think of the Operating Agreement as the constitution for your company and the safeguard for your most valuable assets—your Intellectual Property (IP). It doesn’t just address who owns what; it lays out the rules for everything from daily operations to major life-cycle events.

Key IP and Equity Issues to Define

For an LLC founded on an invention or creative IP, your Operating Agreement must clearly define:

  • Declaration of Ownership Interests: This is critical. It must explicitly state each member’s exact percentage ownership in the LLC’s Intellectual Properties (patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, etc.), not just the company itself.
  • Equity Unit Types and Contributions: How are ownership units issued? The agreement should clarify the type of equity a member receives for different contributions, such as capital, licensed/leased IP, or sweat equity.
  • Vesting: Define the vesting schedule for members’ rights and privileges to ensure founders are incentivized to stay with the company as it grows.

Navigate Management and Growth

As your company transitions from a startup to a mature business, the Operating Agreement provides the framework for efficient operation:

  • Day-to-Day Management: Will the LLC be managed by the members or by a hired non-member manager? Crucially, what are the restraints on management’s authority?
  • Meetings and Decisions: Clear rules on annual and special meetings, including quorums, majority, and supermajority voting requirements, prevent stalemates when big decisions are needed.
  • Membership Qualifications: Set clear criteria for new members or investors, including limits on the maximum number of shareholders, which can be vital for compliance with federal securities law.

Strong Operating Agreements Plan for the Unexpected

Successful companies experience business cycles, and sometimes, members leave or need to be replaced. You need a plan for those “up-and-down” moments:

  • Withdrawal: Set the requirements for a withdrawing member or the estate of a deceased member. This prevents the chaotic valuation and transfer of ownership upon a departure.
  • Forced Withdrawal: Outline the specific conditions under which a member can be forced to withdraw from the LLC (e.g., breach of fiduciary duty, criminal conviction, etc.).
  • Exit Strategies (Milestones): Establish clear milestones for selling the LLC (asset purchase, equity sale, merger) or ceasing operations (bankruptcy). This ensures all owners are aligned on the criteria for a significant life-cycle event before a high-pressure offer is on the table.

A strong Operating Agreement, crafted with the future success and complexity of your Intellectual Properties in mind, is an investment that pays dividends by preventing disputes, clarifying ownership, and allowing you to focus on sales and profitability.

Ready to protect your IP and ensure a smooth operational path for your LLC?

Ask Us Anything…About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Corset Stays - Public Use vs. Public Disclosure in Patents

Public Use Bar

Public Use Bar: A Cautionary Tale for Innovators

For anyone in the world of Patents, the terms “public use” and “public disclosure” are critical—and often misunderstood. 35 U.S.C. § 102 defines these terms and their implications for patentability.

Grace Period

A key point to remember:  the U.S. has a unique one-year grace period for filing a patent application after a public disclosure. In most other countries, any public disclosure can immediately bar you from obtaining a Patent. This is a crucial distinction that can make or break your intellectual property.

Defining the Public Use Bar

What exactly constitutes “public use bar”?  Can a use be “public” even when it’s hidden from the public eye?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1881 decision in Egbert v. Lippmann (104 U.S. 333) provides a fascinating and enduring lesson. The inventor in this case created improved corset steels in 1855, giving them to a single individual to use. Even though the steels were never publicly seen, the Court ruled that this was a public use. The inventor’s subsequent patent, filed years later, was therefore invalidated.

The Egbert Court’s conclusions still stand as a stark warning:

  • A single public use is enough. You don’t need to have a crowd of people using your invention to trigger the bar.
  • Unrestricted use is public use. If you give or sell your invention to another person without any confidentiality agreements or restrictions, that use is considered public.
  • However, experimental use is an exception. A use that is open to public view but is made in good faith solely for testing and experimental purposes does not count as a public use.

Egbert serves as a powerful reminder: the definition of “public use” is far broader than most people realize.

Protect Your Innovation

Don’t let a seemingly private action become a public forfeiture.

35 U.S.C. 102, in part, reads:

(a)    Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

           (1)     the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

          (2)    the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(b)    Exceptions.—

          (1)     Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—

                    (A)    the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

                    (B)    the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Get Help With Your Invention

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Term Extension for Medical Patents

Term Extension for Medical Patents

Term Extension for Medical Patents

The maximum term extension for Medical Patents (and the invention claimed in a Medical Patent that was the subject of regulatory review) is five years from the original expiration date.

The regulatory body for this type of exemption is generally the Food and Drug Administration.

However, not all Medical Patents receive the benefit of the maximum term extension.

What Type of Medical Patents Receive Maximum Term Extensions?

35 U.S.C. §156, in part, reads:

(g) For purposes of this section, the term “regulatory review period” has the following meanings:

(1) (A) In the case of a product which is a new drug, antibiotic drug, or human biological product, the term means the period described in subparagraph (B) to which the limitation described in paragraph (6) applies.

(B) The regulatory review period for a new drug, antibiotic drug, or human biological product is the sum of …

(i) the period beginning on the date an exemption under subsection (i) of section 505 or subsection (d) of section 507 2 became effective for the approved product and ending on the date an application was initially submitted for such drug product under section 351, 505, or 507,2 and

(ii) the period beginning on the date the application was initially submitted for the approved product under section 351, subsection (b) of section 505, or section 507 2 and ending on the date such application was approved under such section.

(3)  (A) In the case of a product which is a medical device, the term means the period described in subparagraph (B) to which the limitation described in paragraph (6) applies.

(B) The regulatory review period for a medical device is the sum of—

(i) the period beginning on the date a clinical investigation on humans involving the device was begun and ending on the date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515, and

(ii) the period beginning on the date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 and ending on the date such application was approved under such Act or the period beginning on the date a notice of completion of product development protocol was initially submitted under section 515(f)(5) and ending on the date the protocol was declared completed under section 515(f)(6).

(6) A period determined under any of the preceding paragraphs is subject to the following limitations:

(A) If the patent involved was issued after the date of the enactment of this section, the period of extension determined on the basis of the regulatory review period determined under any such paragraph may not exceed five years.

Conclusion

New drugs, antibiotic drugs or human biological products and Class III medical devices subject to FDA approval can be granted a five-year term extension from the original expiration date of the Patent.

Medical devices approved under the 510K process are not eligible for any term extension of the Patent.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

The 66 Claims - A Patent Infringement Case

66 Claims: A Tale of Patent Infringement

The 66 Claims

This is a tale of what happened to the 66 claims.

A, B and C were officers and engineers for ABC company located in Cincinnati. In 2022, A, B and C assigned their interests in their joint invention to ABC company. In 2022, ABC company filed the Patent Application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The original ABC Patent Application had 66 claims.

What Happened With the 66 Claims

In 2024, A and B were playing a best ball golf tournament in Louisville. The other twosome happened to be X and Z, who were officers of XYZ company located in Indianapolis. Before starting the back nine, all players took a break at the clubhouse. By the thirteenth hole, A and B were talking about their joint invention.  X and Z listened closely.

In early 2025, ABC company became aware that XYZ company was selling an XYZ invention that appeared to be identical to the ABC company’s invention. ABC had yet to receive regulatory approval for use of its invention. Somehow, XYZ received regulatory approval and made it to market before ABC.

The 66 Claims of the ABC Company’s Application

In the summer of 2025, ABC received the First Office Action from the Examiner regarding the 66 claims. In the Office Action, the Examiner rejected the first 60 claims of the 66 claims but indicated that the last six claims were allowable if some of the language of those six claims was tweaked. Since A, B and C were engineers and not patent attorneys, A, B and C opted to seek legal assistance.

What Did the Law Firm Do With ABC’s Patent Application?

  • First – the firm determined what product XYZ sold.
  • Second – the firm tweaked the last six claims to make them allowable while at the same time ensuring that those six claims read on XYZ product.
  • Third – the firm filed a Response to the Office Action cancelling the first 60 claims and requesting the Examiner allow the last six claims to mature into a Patent.
  • Fourth – the firm prepared another five Patent Applications claiming priority/benefit to the first ABC Application. Each of those five Patent Applications contained 20 claims.  Three of the Applications were Continuations, and one of those included less structures to achieve the same result. Two of the Applications were Continuation-In-Part Applications that included additional structures that ABC had invented since the filing of the first ABC Company Application.

35 U.S.C. § 120 allows an Applicant to claim the benefit of an earlier Patent Application if the earlier Patent Application is still pending.

What Was the Outcome of the 66 Claims?

  • Before the first ABC Company Application was abandoned, the original first 60 claims morphed into five additional Patent Applications having a total of 100 claims.
  • Original claims 61-66 were the basis for the first Patent. ABC sued XYZ for infringement.
  • Before going to trial and because of the distinct possibility of intentional infringement and treble damages, XYZ agreed to allow ABC to select the infringement damages calculation, e.g., ABC’s losses, such as lost profits or a reasonable royalty, or an accounting of the infringer’s profits.
  • XYZ ceases to use, offer for sale, sale, or make ABC’s patented invention.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Micro business requirements by USPTO

Micro Entity and the US Patent Office

What is the Benefit of Being Certified as a Micro Entity?

The United States Patent Office’s (USPTO) fees’ structures are segregated into micro entity, small entity and large entity categories. Government fees for small entities are generally less than other entities’ fees.

USPTO fees periodically change, and it is advisable to check the USPTO website for current rates.

How does an Entity Qualify for Micro Entity Status?

37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.29 defines what entities qualify for micro entity status. In part, 37 C.F.R. 1.29 reads as follows:

(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:

(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27 without relying on a government use license exception under § 1.27(a)(4);

(2) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid;

(3) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census; and

(4) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census.

(b) An applicant, inventor, or joint inventor is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor’s previous employment.

(c) If an applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income exceeds the threshold specified in paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section.

(d) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:

(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27 without relying on a government use license exception under § 1.27(a)(4);

(2)

(i) The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or

(ii) The applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution of higher education.

(e) Micro entity status is established in an application by filing a micro entity certification in writing complying with the requirements of either paragraph (a) or (d) of this section and signed either in compliance with § 1.33(b), in an international application filed in a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.455, or in an international design application by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.1041 before the International Bureau where the micro entity certification is filed with the International Bureau. Status as a micro entity must be specifically established in each related, continuing and reissue application in which status is appropriate and desired. Status as a micro entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent, regardless of the relationship of the applications or patents. The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status for the continuing or reissue application

What is the Maximum Income that Will Qualify Special USPTO Consideration?

As of September 2024 and according to the USPTO, the maximum qualifying gross income for paying the reduced micro entity rate is $241,830. This maximum income limit usually changes in September of each calendar year.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Medical Procedure Patents

Is a Medical Method Patent Enforceable? 

Sometimes. In the United States, medical method/process patents may be granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For patent rights to exist, the patent must first be granted by the appropriate governmental authority.

When is a Medical Method Patent Not Enforceable?

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(c), a medical method/process type patent is not enforceable as follows:

(1)    With respect to a medical practitioner’s performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a) or (b), the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity.

Speaking generally, a medical method/process patent cannot be enforced against a medical practitioner or a related health care entity.

Medical method patent owners are not awarded damages when a medical practitioner or related health care entity infringes the patented medical method/or process.

When is a Medical Method Patent Enforceable?

Provision of pharmacy or clinical laboratory services related to the patented procedure are not exempt.

Definitions: Medical Practitioner or Related Health Care Entity

35 U.S.C. § 287(c) reads as follows:

(2)    For the purposes of this subsection:

                    (A)    the term “medical activity” means the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not include (i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent, (ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of such patent, or (iii) the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent.

                    (B)    the term “medical practitioner” means any natural person who is licensed by a State to provide the 35 U.S.C. § 287(c) described in subsection (c)(1) or who is acting under the direction of such person in the performance of the medical activity.

                     (C)    the term “related health care entity” shall mean an entity with which a medical practitioner has a professional affiliation under which the medical practitioner performs the 35 U.S.C. § 287(c) including but not limited to a nursing home, hospital, university, medical school, health maintenance organization, group medical practice, or a medical clinic.

                     (D)   the term “professional affiliation” shall mean staff privileges, medical staff membership, employment or contractual relationship, partnership or ownership interest, academic appointment, or other affiliation under which a medical practitioner provides the medical activity on behalf of, or in association with, the health care entity.

                     (E)    the term “body” shall mean a human body, organ or cadaver, or a nonhuman animal used in medical research or instruction directly relating to the treatment of humans.

                     (F)    the term “patented use of a composition of matter” does not include a claim for a method of performing a medical or surgical procedure on a body that recites the use of a composition of matter where the use of that composition of matter does not directly contribute to achievement of the objective of the claimed method.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.

Uniform Commercial Code

What is the Uniform Commercial Code?

The Uniform Commercial Code also known as the UCC is a matter of State law. Every State of the United States has adopted some version of the UCC. There can be slight differences in the statutory laws of neighboring States. The UCC provides a regulatory framework controlling transaction. Unbeknownst to the typical American consumer, the UCC can effect many everyday transactions.

What does the Uniform Commercial Code Effect?

The Uniform Commercial Code effects:

  • Sales of Goods
  • Leases of Goods
  • Negotiable Instruments
  • Bank Deposits and Collections
  • Digital Funds Transfers
  • Letters of Credit
  • Secured Transactions
  • Securities

 The Uniform Commercial Code Does Not Effect

  • Real Property
  • Service Contracts
  • Employment Contracts
  • Insurance
  • Intangible Assets (Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks)

Our Clients

  • For many of Business Patent Law’s (BPL) clients, BPL only provides intangible assets (Intellectual Property) counsel
  • For some of BPL’s clients, BPL provides service and employment contracts and Intellectual Property counsel
  • For some of BPL’s clients, BPL provides sale of goods contracts, service and employment contracts and Intellectual Property counsel
  • For some of BPL’s clients, BPL provides Securities, service and employment contracts and Intellectual Property counsel

If we may be of assistance with contract, intellectual property or securities matters, please contact us.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are 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.