<b>1. TOO LATE TO FILE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS.</b>Unfortunately for many good technology companies, it may be too late to file for patent protection. The current U.S. rule generally provides applicants with a one-year grace period during which a patent application must be filed after certain public or private disclosures of the invention. Such disclosures may arise, for example, from a mere 'offer for sale' of the technology, even if the product has not yet been built or prototyped. In comparison, the foreign rule, which applies to many industrialized jurisdictions, such as Japan and various European countries, does not give applicants the benefit of any grace period after a public disclosure has occurred. Thus, it is legally compelling for applicants to consider filing for patent protection as soon as possible after invention. Although in some situations there may be some special exception that allows for a late filing, it is not advisable for applicants to count on those exceptions.
Dennis Fernandez1. TOO LATE TO FILE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS.
Unfortunately for many good technology companies, it may be too late to file for patent protection. The current U.S. rule generally provides applicants with a one-year grace period during which a patent application must be filed after certain public or private disclosures of the invention.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges
New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.
State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.
The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
