Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Can an Investment Invalidate a Patent?
Structuring a venture capital investment is almost always tricky, but if both sides aren't careful, they may inadvertently create problems with any pending patent applications the target company is prosecuting. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows certain parties, such as small businesses (referred to generally as “small entities”), to pay reduced fees. This can be a big benefit to small businesses and individual inventors, many of which have only limited funds with which to prosecute a patent application.
Most patent attorneys and patent agents evaluate a client for small entity status based on the “500 employee rule” ' that is, if the client has fewer than 500 employees, they are a small entity. This rule serves well for a quick “ball park” determination and the elimination of large clients from eligibility, however determining whether a party truly qualifies as a small entity is more complicated. For example, in certain circumstances, a company that would qualify as a small business under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) loan qualification guidelines might not qualify as a small entity for the purpose of paying reduced USPTO fees. Improperly claiming small entity status during patent prosecution can open a patent to attack during litigation, and the cost of defending against such a claim can easily exceed the savings on government fees. Careful evaluation of a company's small entity status is therefore warranted before claiming such status.
Through 35 U.S.C. '41(h), Congress has authorized the USPTO to allow small entities to pay reduced patent filing and prosecution fees. The USPTO has implemented this in 37 C.F.R. '1.27, and 37 C.F.R. '1.27(a) sets forth some basic rules for evaluating when a party qualifies as a small entity. The evaluation is based on three different classifications: persons, nonprofit organizations, and small business concerns.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.