Are USPTO Entity Status Changes Affecting Your Company?
Profits may change, and the number of employees may change, but what about the already-filed patent applications and existing patents? Change may need to occur in that arena as well.
February 03, 2023 at 01:56 PM
10 minute read
For business owners, decision makers, and the attorneys who represent them, perhaps 2022 brought great change. Did your or your client's company expand, downsize or restructure? Did your client, an independent inventor, realize newfound success? With that, profits may change, and the number of employees may change, but what about the already-filed patent applications and existing patents? Change may need to occur in that arena as well.
Patent application fees and patent maintenance fees are based on "entity status." An applicant or owner may qualify as a micro entity, small entity, or large entity, and the status system aims to make patent acquisition and maintenance more affordable for individual inventors, small businesses and nonprofits. Recently, The Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022, signed into law on Dec. 29, 2022, and now in effect, increased small entity fee discounts from 50% to 60% and micro entity discounts from 75% to 80%. See 117th Cong. Section 7 (2021-2022), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2773/text; see also USPTO fee schedule, USPTO (Jan. 1, 2023), https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Exam%20Fee. This results in lower application filing fees, examination fees, and issue fees, among others. If your client or company filed an application under one type of entity status and now qualifies as a different type of entity, it is imperative to know what type of entity status now applies and when you need to notify the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
This content has been archived.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 All'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 2'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 3Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 4Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
- 5Davis Wright Tremaine Turns to Gen AI To Teach Its Associates Legal Writing
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