Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The 2025 Patent Landscape Begins With Many Pieces of Proposed Legislation
The U.S. patent legal landscape in 2025 is poised for change. The incoming presidential administration is coupled with interim changes in leadership at the USPTO after Kathi Vidal’s departure, and several newly vacant, fillable commissioner seat openings at the ITC. Technology such as artificial intelligence — and changing attitudes towards those technologies — are evolving at an accelerating pace.
And, amid that backdrop, many pieces of proposed patent legislation are pending in Congress which could further — or possibly stifle — modern trends in American patent law, and could alter our innovation landscape for years to come. This article surveys that pending patent legislation.
IDEA Act
Inspired by the SUCCESS Act’s reporting requirement, the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement (IDEA) Act directs the USPTO to collect voluntary, confidential demographic data from inventors and patent applicants, in an effort to promote increased participation of women, minorities, and veterans in the American patent system. S. 632, 117 Cong. §1 (2021).
The IDEA act would include a mechanism for the collection of voluntary, confidential demographic data from inventors and patent applicants, which would be stored entirely independently of individual applications so that the data would not be considered by examiners and would have no impact on an application’s success. IDEA passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee with strong support, with a vote of 15-6, and will soon move to a full vote by the Senate.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.