Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 NOVEMBER 2007

New U.S. Patent Rules Notice

Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Explore more from Chadbourne & Parke LLP

This notice summarizes the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rules changes that were published on August 21, 2007 and that will become effective on November 1, 2007. In many instances, aspects of the new rules apply retroactively.

United StatesIntellectual Property

By Walther Hanchuk and John Kheit

Originally published October 25, 2007

This notice summarizes the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rules changes that were published on August 21, 2007 and that will become effective on November 1, 2007. In many instances, aspects of the new rules apply retroactively.

This notice certainly is not exhaustive, but rather aims to provide (I) a high level discussion of three primary changes to the patent rules, (II) note possible courses of action related to the new rules, and (III) discuss possible ramifications to the industry at large.

It should be noted that this notice only provides an introductory overview of a few of the more significant new USPTO patent rules. The rule changes are expansive, rather complex and their application and impact vary significantly under differing circumstances. Please note, due in part to the interplay of the new rules discussed herein, application filing strategies may vary greatly. As these new

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

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

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

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