Large and small entities in patent law

Last updated

In United States patent law, those applying for a patent, i.e. applicants, and patentees may claim a particular status depending on the number of their employees. The fees to be paid to the patent office depend on the applicant's status. The statuses include the "large entity" status and the "small entity" status. The "micro entity" status is a further status, which was introduced with the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011.

Contents

The small entity status allows small businesses, independent inventors, nonprofit organizations to file a patent application and maintain an issued patent for a reduced fee—a 60% reduction. [1] Under 13 C.F.R. § 121.802(a), an entity qualifies as a "small business concern", and so qualifies for small entity status, if its number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations, discussed below, define "employees" and "affiliates".

If an organization or individual qualifies for small entity status, claiming such status is relatively simple. The person seeking such status needs to simply file a verified statement in the patent application prior to paying the first fee as a small entity. Any subsequent payments only need to include a statement where such status has changed.

The concept of "small entity" also exist in other jurisdictions, such as in Canada. [2]

Employees

An entity, including its affiliates, may have up to 500 employees before being disqualified for small-entity status. Federal regulations define what persons qualify as employees and over what time periods employee counts are made.

All individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis are counted in determining a business concern's number of employees. 13 C.F.R. § 121.106(a). This includes employees obtained from a temporary employee agency, professional employee organization or leasing concern. The totality of the circumstances, including criteria used by the IRS for Federal income tax purposes, are considered in determining whether individuals are employees of a concern. Volunteers (i.e., individuals who receive no compensation, including no in-kind compensation, for work performed) are not considered employees.

Part-time and temporary employees are counted the same as full-time employees. § 121.106(b)(2). Where the number of employees fluctuates over the course of a year, the number of employees may be taken to be the average number of employees over the preceding 12 calendar months. § 121.106(b)(1). The average number of employees of a business concern with affiliates is calculated by adding the average number of employees of the business concern with the average number of employees of each affiliate. § 121.106(b)(4)(i). If a concern has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the applicable period of measurement or before the date on which it self-certified as small, the employees counted in determining size status include the employees of the acquired or acquiring concern. Furthermore, this aggregation applies for the entire period of measurement, not just the period after the affiliation arose. The employees of a former affiliate are not counted if affiliation ceased before the date used for determining size. § 121.106(b)(4)(ii). This exclusion of employees of a former affiliate applies during the entire period of measurement, rather than only for the period after which affiliation ceased.

Affiliates and control

Small business concerns as defined by federal regulations for the purposes of receiving small-entity discounts on patent fees may have a maximum of 500 employees, including affiliates. Thus, a business concern that might otherwise qualify for small-entity status might be disqualified if it is affiliated with one or more other business concerns that cumulatively have more than 500 employees. Affiliation is determined under a control test. Concerns are "affiliates" of each other for the purposes of 13 C.F.R. § 121.802(a) when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1). It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists.

The test for determining control takes in account ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual relationships. § 121.103(a)(2). The federal regulations that describe control set out a number of circumstances where control obviously exists, as where one entity owns more than 50% of the stock in another entity, § 121.103(c)(1), or where one or more officers, directors, managing members, or partners who control the board of directors and/or management of one concern also control the board of directors or management of one or more other concerns, § 121.103(e).

There are also a number of "safe-harbor" exceptions to affiliation coverage found in 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(b), mostly involving ownership by certain kinds of investment companies, venture capital operating companies, Indian tribes, § 501(c) nonprofits like charitable trusts, foundations, endowments, etc.

If the assignee of a patent application has difficulty determining for itself whether it qualifies for small-entity status, authorized SBA officials may make formal entity size determinations, based upon a specific patent application pursuant to USPTO rules. 13 C.F.R. § 121.803. Such determinations, which may be thought of as analogous to a private letter ruling issued by the IRS to resolve questions relating to federal taxation, are binding upon the parties. Other SBA opinions provided to patent applicants or others are only advisory, and are not binding or appealable.

Effect of initial status determination during pendency of application

Once a good faith determination of small entity status has been made and appropriately established with the USPTO, the lower small entity fees may be paid in the application without regard to change in status until the issue fee or maintenance fee is due. 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(g)(1). In practical terms, this rule relieves applicants and their representatives of the burdensome duty to constantly reevaluate the determination of an application's assignee organization(s)' small entity status(es) throughout the pendency of the application up to and until the issue fee is paid.

Loss of status

Small entity status is lost when the patent is licensed, exclusively or non-exclusively, or assigned to an organization that would not itself qualify for small entity status. Special care should be taken by an organization licensing technology to the government. Except for licenses under the Bayh–Dole Act, the government is not a small entity for these purposes and small entity status would be lost.[ citation needed ]

If an organization (including affiliates) has fewer than 500 employees, an application data sheet may be filed, the box as a small entity may be checked, and subsequently the small entity fees may be paid until the patent is allowed or a maintenance fee on a resulting patent is due. At those points in time, the patent agent or attorney might need to send a notification of loss of small entity status. [3] [4]

Micro entity status

Changes to U.S. patent law in December 2012 created a sub-category of small entity status called "micro entity status" [5] for inventors who qualify for small entity status, but also have a gross income less than three times the current gross median income and have applied for no more than four patents previously, or who have [6] an association with an institution of higher education. [7]

Misrepresentation penalties and consequences

Misrepresenting a firm's size status can result in suspension or disbarment, as well as civil and criminal penalties. 13 C.F.R. § 121.108(e). Moreover, all claims of a patent issued following an intentional misrepresentation of small entity status may be held to be unenforceable as the result of inequitable conduct, i.e., fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See MPEP § 2016; 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(h). As long as any small-entity assertions are made without any intent to deceive, any improper assertion of small-entity status should not be considered fraud. SeeDH Technology, Inc. v. Synergystex Intern., Inc., 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Turbocare Corp. v. General Electric Company, 45 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 1999).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Patent and Trademark Office</span> Agency in the United States Department of Commerce

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Admission to the bar in the United States</span> Registration to practice law in a US jurisdiction

Admission to the bar in the United States is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in the jurisdiction and before those courts. Each U.S. state and similar jurisdiction has its own court system and sets its own rules for bar admission, which can lead to different admission standards among states. In most cases, a person is "admitted" or "called" to the bar of the highest court in the jurisdiction and is thereby authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction. Federal courts, although often overlapping in admission standards with states, set their own requirements for practice in each of those courts.

Prior art is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability. In most systems of patent law, prior art is generally defined as anything that is made available, or disclosed, to the public that might be relevant to a patent's claim before the effective filing date of a patent application for an invention. However, notable differences exist in how prior art is specifically defined under different national, regional, and international patent systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sole proprietorship</span> Business legally synonymous with its owner

A sole proprietorship, also known as a sole tradership, individual entrepreneurship or proprietorship, is a type of enterprise owned and run by one person and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business entity. A sole trader does not necessarily work alone and may employ other people.

A patent attorney is an attorney who has the specialized qualifications necessary for representing clients in obtaining patents and acting in all matters and procedures relating to patent law and practice, such as filing patent applications and oppositions to granted patents. The term is used differently in different countries, and thus may or may not require the same legal qualifications as a general legal practitioner.

A patent examiner is an employee, usually a civil servant with a scientific or engineering background, working at a patent office. Major employers of patent examiners are the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and other patent offices around the world.

Under United States patent law, a continuing patent application is a patent application that follows, and claims priority to, an earlier-filed patent application. A continuing patent application may be one of three types: a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. Although continuation and continuation-in-part applications are generally available in the U.S. only, divisional patent applications are also available in other countries, as such availability is required under Article 4G of the Paris Convention.

In most patent laws, unity of invention is a formal administrative requirement that must be met by a patent application to become a granted patent. Basically, a patent application can relate only to one invention or a group of closely related inventions. The purpose of this requirement is administrative, as well as financial. That is, the requirement serves to preclude the option of filing one patent application for several inventions, while paying only one set of fees. Unity of invention also makes the classification of patent documents easier.

Under United States patent law, a provisional application is a legal document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), that establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year. There is no such thing as a "provisional patent".

Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

Maintenance fees or renewal fees are fees paid to maintain a granted patent in force. Some patent laws require the payment of maintenance fees for pending patent applications. Not all patent laws require the payment of maintenance fees and different laws provide different regulations concerning not only the amount payable but also the regularity of the payments. In countries where maintenance fees are to be paid annually, they are sometimes called patent annuities.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

In the United States, an Office action is a document written by an examiner in a patent or trademark examination procedure and mailed to an applicant for a patent or trademark. The expression is used in many jurisdictions.

A trademark examiner is an attorney employed by a government entity such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to determine whether an applicant should be permitted to receive a trademark registration, thus affording legal protection to the applicant's trademark. The job of a trademark examiner is thus to examine marks applied for to determine if they run afoul of any prohibitions on registration, such as infringing upon an existing registration of the same mark, or constituting the generic name of the goods with which the mark is associated.

Scams in intellectual property include scams in which inventors and other rights holders are lured to pay money for an apparently official registration of their intellectual property, or for professional development and promotion of their ideas, but do not receive the expected services.

Although not clearly defined, the backlog of unexamined patent applications consists, at one point in time, of all the patent applications that have been filed and still remain to be examined. The backlog was said to be 4.2 million worldwide in 2007, and in 2009 it reportedly continued to grow. Alone, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was reported to have, in 2009, a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a $953-billion business loan program established by the United States federal government during the Trump administration in 2020 through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to help certain businesses, self-employed workers, sole proprietors, certain nonprofit organizations, and tribal businesses continue paying their workers.

References

  1. ↑ "Patent fees for small and micro entities reduced".
  2. ↑ "..."small entity" means an entity that employs 50 or fewer employees or that is a university, but does not include an entity that is controlled directly or indirectly by an entity, other than a university, that employs more than 50 employees." in Subsection 3.02 (2) of the (Canadian) Patent Rules
  3. ↑ Paragraphs g(1) and g(2) of 37 C.F.R. 1.27
  4. ↑ "509-". uspto.gov. Retrieved 5 April 2015.
  5. ↑ Federal Register, pages 75033–75034, 37 C.F.R. § 1.29
  6. ↑ "New Fees and Micro Entity Status Take Effect March 19". uspto.gov. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
  7. ↑ December 19, 2012, Federal Register page 75034, left column
Case law
Statutes
Patent office procedures
Commentary
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.