Let's Not Forget Utility Model Patents
Utility model patents are a little-known and seldom-used tool that is perfect for extending intellectual property protection abroad. With low cost, a fast grant and reduced inventiveness requirement, they can often fill the void between product release and grant of invention patents. But be aware that there are many local nuances.
October 01, 2021 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
You never know when you will have an unexpected need that could be easily addressed if you just knew where to go or what to use. My curiosity has often been rewarded by walking down the aisle less traveled, only to discover an obscure tool that is the perfect solution to solve that problem I've been putting off addressing. Utility model patents often fit the bill as that little-known and seldom-used tool that is a perfect fit for extending your intellectual property protection abroad.
Utility model patents are not available in the United States, which is why many patent practitioners and business leaders are unfamiliar with their use and nuances. Although the rules and scope of utility model patents vary from country to country, utility models generally have a shorter patent term (10 years as opposed to 20 for conventional utility applications), a reduced inventive step (e.g., obviousness) requirement, and are limited in subject matter to the shape and structure of an article (or their combination). In particular, utility models are typically not available for processes or new materials. Benefits of utility models are that they generally issue very quickly, and, in many countries, can be filed in parallel with conventional invention patents, giving applicants an opportunity for quick initial coverage for fast-to-market inventions, while waiting for the examination and eventual issuance of the conventional invention application.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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.
You Might Like
View AllFirst-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
3 minute readIntellectual Property Lawyer of the Year Finalist: Ronald S. Bienstock
1 minute readMcCarter & English Acquires Connecticut IP Boutique Harrington & Smith
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 2Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 3Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
- 4Davis Wright Tremaine Turns to Gen AI To Teach Its Associates Legal Writing
- 5'Battle of the Experts': Bridgeport Jury Awards Defense Verdict to Stamford Hospital
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250