Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 APRIL 2004

Erroneous Small Entity Designation Can Jeopardize Patent Rights

Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Contributor
Wiggin and Dana LLP

Wiggin and Dana LLP

Wiggin and Dana is a full-service law firm of highly talented, creative and experienced lawyers...

View firm profile
Explore more from Wiggin and Dana LLP

A decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in <I>Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer Management Corp</I>., 351 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. December 9, 2003), highlights the importance of carefully determining whether a patent applicant or patentee is qualified for "small entity" status when paying fees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

United StatesIntellectual Property
Todd Garabedian
Todd Garabedian

A decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer Management Corp., 351 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. December 9, 2003), highlights the importance of carefully determining whether a patent applicant or patentee is qualified for "small entity" status when paying fees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

The PTO rules define a "small entity" as an independent inventor, a non-profit organization, or a "small business concern." A "small business concern" is any business concern that, together with its affiliates, has no more than 500 employees and that has not assigned, granted, conveyed or licensed, and is not obligated to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention to any person who could not be classified as an independent inventor or to any concern that would not qualify as a small business concern or a nonprofit organization. Being classified as a small entity entitles the patent applicant or patentee to pay

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

Recent Significant Federal Merger Enforcement Developments

The Justice Department has resumed targeted Second Request investigations to expedite merger reviews, while major entertainment industry consolidation faces legal challenges and the FTC secures record penalties for Hart-Scott-Rodino Act violations. These developments signal a shifting landscape in federal merger enforcement, balancing efficiency with rigorous antitrust scrutiny across multiple industries.
United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

New Connecticut Law Targets Employee Monitoring And Surveillance Practices

Connecticut has enacted sweeping changes to workplace electronic monitoring requirements, mandating that employers provide detailed location-specific notices about surveillance activities and inform new hires about prohibited conduct that may be monitored. The new law, effective October 2026, significantly expands existing notice obligations while introducing carve-outs for security purposes and investigations of suspected misconduct.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

Second Circuit Adopts Expansive Interpretation Of Protected Activity But Declines To Broadly Construe Ending Forced Arbitration Act

On September 21, 2026, the Second Circuit handed down its opinion in Newton v. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., a significant decision addressing both the scope of protected activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision and the applicability of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) to claims accruing before the statute’s enactment.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

The Creator Economy Meets Estate Planning: Protecting And Transferring Digital Businesses

As the creator economy continues to expand, individuals who derive income from digital platforms face a critical estate planning question. For those who already have an estate plan, that plan may not adequately address the unique challenges of managing, valuing and transferring digital businesses, leaving these increasingly valuable assets vulnerable to confusion, lost revenue and family conflict.
United StatesWealth Management
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

Public PAIR: The Newest Tool to Monitor the Filing and Prosecution of Competitor Patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced a new electronic database as part of its effort to make the patent examination process fully transparent to the public. The new database, known as the Public PAIR (Patent Application and Information Retrieval) system, allows anyone with Internet access to track the status of a public patent application as it moves from publication to final disposition.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

2026 Legislative Session: CUTPA Developments Advisory

Connecticut's 2026 legislative session transformed the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act into a primary vehicle for technology regulation, creating fifteen new per se violations while systematically excluding private enforcement rights for AI and tech-related provisions. This shift represents a fundamental change in how Connecticut regulates technology companies, concentrating enforcement power exclusively with the Attorney General for areas ranging from AI companion safety to surveillance pricing.
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP