Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JANUARY 2025

USPTO Patent And Trademark Fee Increases

K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Contributor
K&L Gates

K&L Gates

The Firm K&L Gates is an integrated, international law firm. As a single global law firm, truly...

View firm profile
Explore more from K&L Gates

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced increased patent and trademark fees effective 19 and 18 January 2025, respectively.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Matthew Dicke
Matthew Dicke
Alexis Crawford Douglas
Alexis Crawford Douglas
Clare Frederick
Clare Frederick
Benjamin D. Heuberger, Ph.D.
Benjamin D. Heuberger, Ph.D.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced increased patent and trademark fees effective 19 and 18 January 2025, respectively.

The USPTO periodically reviews its fee structures in view of achieving its stated strategic goals, which include:

  1. To promote innovation strategies;
  2. To align fees with the full costs of products and services;
  3. To facilitate effective administration of the US patent system; and
  4. To offer application processing options.

The USPTO states that most of the fee increases are well below the rate of inflation since the last USPTO fee increase in 2020. Summaries of the fee changes for patents can be found here, and summaries of the fee changes for trademarks can be found here.

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

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

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

Text-Message Marketing In Texas, One Year After SB 140

Texas Senate Bill 140 (SB 140) took effect 1 September 2025, and applies to conduct occurring on or after that date. The bill amended Section 302 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code to extend registration and disclosure requirements to text messages by expanding the definition of “Telephone solicitation,” which previously applied only to a “telephone call,” to include certain transmissions of text or graphic messages and images. In addition, SB 140 added a definition of “Telephone call” that incorporates the definition found in Section 304, which includes certain text or graphic messages and images, but excludes certain agreed-to transmissions.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

SEC And CFTC Open Door To Tokenized Markets After Clarity Fails To Advance

The SEC and CFTC have issued coordinated regulatory relief measures that significantly advance crypto-based trading infrastructure in US markets, bypassing Congressional gridlock on the CLARITY Act. These orders establish new frameworks for tokenized securities venues and passive software providers, potentially reshaping how digital assets are traded and accessed in regulated markets.
United StatesFinance and Banking
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

EU AI Act: Final Guidelines On Transparency Obligations Under Article 50

The European Commission has issued guidelines on transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act, clarifying how providers and deployers must inform individuals when they interact with AI systems or are exposed to AI-generated content. These non-binding guidelines address a wide range of AI applications, from chatbots to deepfake technologies, and establish four main transparency scenarios with specific disclosure requirements that businesses must now prepare to implement.
European UnionGovernment, Public Sector
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

Venezuela's Reopening: Investment, Infrastructure, And Technology Opportunities In A Rebuilding Latin America

Venezuela's post-Maduro reopening is creating unprecedented opportunities for foreign investors across energy, mining, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors. With expanding OFAC sanctions relief, landmark legislative reforms, and major US companies nearing multibillion-dollar deals, the country presents investment prospects not seen in a generation—though success requires disciplined navigation of corruption, security, and regulatory risks.
United StatesInternational Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

New EU Withdrawal Button Requirement: Practical Implications And Recommendations For US And Global Online Sellers

The European Union's new Consumer Rights Directive amendment introduces a mandatory "withdrawal button" for online merchants, fundamentally changing how consumers exercise their 14-day right of withdrawal from distance contracts. This requirement, effective June 19, 2026, applies to any trader—including US-based companies—actively selling to EU consumers, creating new compliance obligations around button placement, design standards, data collection, and confirmation processes. Understanding whic
European UnionConsumer Protection
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

United States Opens A New Chapter In Civil Nuclear Cooperation With The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia

The United States and Saudi Arabia have signed a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishing the legal framework for decades of civilian nuclear partnership. This agreement resolves years of debate over nonproliferation conditions and positions US companies to participate in Saudi Arabia's ambitious civil nuclear program. The deal carries significant implications for US engagement in the Middle East, international nuclear commerce, and the global competiti
GlobalGovernment, Public Sector
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

China’s A-Share Market Expands Closing-Price Trading: Implications For Funds And Institutional Investors

China's stock exchanges have implemented three major trading rule changes effective July 6, 2026, designed to enhance market quality and align practices with international standards. The reforms expand after-hours trading, modify public fund pricing mechanisms, and adjust price limits for risk-warning stocks. How will these structural changes impact institutional investors, ETF efficiency, and overall market participation in China's evolving capital markets?
ChinaFinance and Banking
K&L Gates
K&L Gates