Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: December 19, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued a final rule raising certain patent fees. While many filers may have sticker shock, there is an upside — The additional fee collections should help the agency reduce its backlog, decrease wait times, and make needed technology improvements.

The American Invents Act (AIA) authorizes the USPTO to set or adjust all patent and trademark fees established, authorized, or charged under Title 35 of the U.S. Code and the Trademark Act of 1946. When fees are set, the aggregate revenue from the patent fees may be used to recover the aggregate estimated cost of patent operations, including administrative costs to the USPTO.
The USPTO last adjusted its fees under the AIA in 2013. The latest changes become effective on January 16, 2018.
The USPTO published a table summarizing all of the new or adjusted fees. Below are several notable changes:
The USPTO does provide discounted patent fees for start-ups and other small businesses. In most cases, small entities pay 50% of the standard fee, while micro-entities pay 25%. Maintenance fees are similarly reduced for small businesses.
To qualify for discounted patent fees, small entities must meet the definition of “small business concern” under § 3 of the Small Business Act (most significantly that they must not have more than 500 employees).
To qualify as a micro entity, an applicant must meet all of the following criteria:
There are other strategies available to reduce the cost of pursuing patents. To determine the best course of action for your business, it is essential to work with an experienced intellectual property attorney.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!