Latest news with #legalprotection
Entrepreneur
4 days ago
- Business
- Entrepreneur
4 Surprising Patent Myths That Could Cost You Big — What You Need to Know Now
Think patents are just legal jargon or a guaranteed payday? Discover the surprising truths behind common U.S. patent myths and what you really need to know before you file. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. When people hear the word "patent," they often think of complicated legal jargon or massive tech companies. As defined by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention that provides inventors with legal protection. But whether you're a solo entrepreneur, a scientist, or a small business owner, patents can play a crucial role in protecting your unique ideas and innovations. For me, patents have been a very personal part of my journey as an entrepreneur and scientist, especially in my pursuit of protecting my ideas and leaving a lasting impact with my work. The world of patents is a complicated one, with a number of requirements that anyone looking to file must meet. Additional complexities come into the mix depending on the country you're filing in. For readers who are considering protecting their own inventions or products, understanding these nuances is key. With so many moving parts, it's no surprise that there are a number of widespread myths surrounding U.S. patents in particular. These myths can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, making it even more intimidating to begin the patent process. I've authored multiple patents, many rooted in bioscience, detox technology and environmental sustainability. And along the way, I've uncovered some pretty surprising truths — and debunked quite a few myths — about how the U.S. patent system really works. Whether you're just starting to explore patents or already in the process, the best way to break down common myths about U.S. patents is to debunk them with facts. Below, I take a look at four U.S. patent myths and address the real truth behind them to help you make better informed decisions related to your own patents, so you can protect your ideas and bring your innovations to life. Related: How to Identify the Patent-Worthy Innovations in Your Business Debunking four U.S. patent myths There are a number of myths surrounding U.S. patents, from the length of patent validity to the actual steps of the patent filing process. One that's especially persistent is the idea that having a patent automatically means you will make money. I wish it were that simple. If you're an innovator hoping to monetize your invention, understanding this distinction will save you time and disappointment. A patent is just one part of the bigger picture — it's a protective tool, not a guarantee of profit. You still need a solid plan, strong partnerships and the right timing to actually bring that innovation to life. Let's clear up four common U.S. patent myths to provide you with a clearer understanding of what a patent can actually do for your journey. Myth 1: There is only one kind of U.S. patent Utility: For new or improved processes, machines and inventions. Design: For new, original and ornamental designs, such as the shape or pattern of a useful item. Plant: For new kinds of plants invented or discovered through asexual reproduction. There are actually three types of U.S. patents that you can file for. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) lists the three types of patents as follows: The specific type of U.S. patent you'll want to file for will depend on your idea, invention or innovation. Before you begin the patent process, start with a deep dive into what's already out there. A thorough patent search can save you a lot of time and frustration. Then, make sure you're clear on what kind of patent you need — utility, design or plant — because each has a different purpose and process. For you, this means your invention's unique features will dictate your approach, so getting this step right early is critical. Myth 2: You need to be a lawyer or tied to a large company to receive a patent This is one of the biggest myths I ran into early on, and it's simply not true. While it helps to have legal experts involved, especially when you're trying to protect your work globally, many of my patents came from deeply personal research and experiences. I was hands-on with every single step, from the science to the strategy. You can absolutely be an independent innovator and still protect your ideas. You don't need a massive machine behind you — just a clear vision, dedication and the right guidance. So, if you're worried you don't "fit the mold" of who can file patents, rest assured that many successful inventors started exactly where you are now. Myth 3: Patents are valid forever It's not surprising that this myth is popular, especially given how confusing the different types of U.S. patents can be to the general public. Tie in the legal complexities of patents, and it's easy to see how patent protection periods get lost in the mix. Patents are not valid forever. The three types of U.S. patents all have different lengths of validity. According to the USPTO , utility and plant patents have a period of up to 20 years "from the date the first non-provisional application for patent was filed." A design patent is valid for a period of 15 years from the date it's granted. If you're considering your patent as a long-term asset, it's important to plan accordingly. Knowing the expiration timeline helps you strategize how to maximize the value of your invention while your patent is active. Related: Unlocking the Market Potential of Your Patent Portfolio — A Guide for Entrepreneurs Myth 4: A U.S. patent protects my idea/invention globally In 2023, the U.S. was second behind China as the country with the most patent applications filed worldwid e. U.S. patent applications totaled 518,791 that year. Any patents filed in the U.S. that are granted will provide legal protection within the country, not globally. Patents are territorial rights, meaning the protections a patent provides are only applicable in the country where the patent is filed and granted. But that's not to say you can't protect your idea or invention worldwide —you can think globally. If your invention has the potential to help people outside the U.S., explore international patent options early. You may need to apply in individual countries or use international systems like the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). I've learned that having a team that understands both the science and the legal side makes everything smoother and more successful when seeking international patent coverage. For innovators like you aiming to expand your impact, early global strategy can be a game-changer. For anyone who's looking to protect their ideas, seeking a U.S. patent is a crucial step to take. And by debunking the myths and misconceptions that surround them, you'll be able to make better informed decisions as you start the patent process for yourself. But remember, filing a patent isn't just about protecting your idea — it's about building a legacy. Every time I've submitted an application, I've done it knowing I was adding something meaningful to the world. And for me, that makes every challenge and every late-night research session worth it. If you're on a similar path, know that your dedication to protecting your ideas today could lead to innovations that change tomorrow. Join top CEOs, founders and operators at the Level Up conference to unlock strategies for scaling your business, boosting revenue and building sustainable success.
Al Jazeera
5 days ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US court briefly pauses Trump's move to end protective status for Afghans
An appeals court has briefly extended temporary protected status (TPS) for nearly 12,000 Afghans in the United States, hours before it was to expire. Monday's order came 60 days after the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Donald Trump announced that it was ending the legal protections for thousands of Afghans legally living in the United States. The order by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, granted an administrative stay on the termination until Monday after a request from the immigration advocacy organisation CASA. The appeals court gave no reason for its decision but indicated it would be deciding what to do swiftly. CASA had sought an emergency stay on Monday when the protection of Afghans was due to be terminated, court documents showed. Its case also includes Cameroonians whose TPS is to end on August 4. The immigrant advocacy group said the step to remove the status was arbitrary and discriminatory and would cause 'irreparable harm' to those affected. The court has asked both sides to submit briefs this week. The Trump administration has until 11:59pm US Eastern time on Wednesday (03:59 GMT on Thursday) to respond. A federal judge on Friday allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out. The stay is not a final decision but gives time for the legal challenge, said Shawn VanDiver, founder of AfghanEvac, the main coalition of US military veterans and advocacy groups that coordinates resettlements of Afghan refugees with the government. 'AfghanEvac stands firmly behind the legal challenge and calls on DHS and the Trump administration to immediately reverse course and extend TPS protections,' VanDiver said in an email to the Reuters news agency. That status had allowed Afghans to live and work in the US and meant the government could not deport them. Millions of Afghans who fled their country over previous decades are now being forced back to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan from countries including Iran, Pakistan and the US. Deportations of Afghans are also anticipated in Germany as its government seeks talks with the Taliban. About 180,000 Afghans have come to the US since the Taliban retook control of the country in 2021. About 11,700 of them are currently covered by TPS. When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better. 'The Secretary determined that, overall, there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions,' according to the May announcement. But rights advocates said many Afghans who helped the US during its war in Afghanistan would be targets of the Taliban if they return home. Particularly at risk would be women, whose rights the Taliban have rolled back since its return to power after the US withdrawal, rights groups said. The International Criminal Court last week issued arrest warrants for two top Taliban leaders in Afghanistan on charges related to abuses against women and girls. 'While the Taliban have imposed certain rules and prohibitions on the population as a whole, they have specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms,' the court said in a statement. The US homeland security secretary may grant TPS to people from specific countries. Countries that are currently designated for TPS include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen. In addition to Afghanistan and Cameroon, the Trump administration has moved to end the designation for an estimated 260,000 Haitians and 350,000 Venezuelans. The Trump administration has also announced it will revoke the two-year 'humanitarian parole' of about 530,000 people in the US, including Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.
Daily Mail
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Sir David's dig about lawyers drew a prim response from the PM. The House didn't warm to Starmer's tone... QUENTIN LETTS on SAS veterans
Tim Collins was in the gallery for PMQs with some old Army colleagues, one of them a beret-topped old lad quite possibly carved from mesquite wood. Col Collins was the Royal Irish Regiment commander who in 2003, before the Iraq war, gave his men a speech about death and honour and the imperatives both of ruthlessness in battle and magnanimity in victory. It ended with the stirring words 'our business now is north'. Anyway, he and the mesquite guy and their friends were in the Commons to hear Sir David Davis (Con, Goole & Pocklington) urge the Prime Minister to stop the legal harassment of former soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. The Government, whose attorney-general Lord Hermer KC once represented Gerry Adams, intends to undo a 2023 law which gave soldiers part-immunity from such prosecutions. It is the sort of area in which Sir Keir and his old buddy Hermer kept themselves busy in their professional days. We may guess their instincts. PMs can not always indulge their youthful radicalism. They must consider bigger concepts such as military morale, natural justice and public sentiment, which is not necessarily as fussed about dead IRA terrorists' human rights as certain fancy KCs might be. Sir David spoke up, for the sixth time in recent months, for veterans who could be 'exposed to legal persecution for crimes they did not commit'. Up in the gallery, Col Collins and his neighbours listened impassively. When lobby groups visit Parliament they normally do much nodding and craning of necks to demonstrate their emotional involvement. These Army boys did none of that. They just sat there like troopers awaiting the first shot of a skirmish. They were controlled. Intent. Sir David noted that during the Troubles there was never a shortage of legal oversight for the security forces. 'No bullet went unscrutinised. Our soldiers were held to the highest standard of law. The IRA were not. They tortured and shot men in the back.' Yet now the Government intended to prosecute 'our own men' over split-second decisions taken decades ago. The House, which had earlier been in a rather silly mood, listened to all this in silence. Sir David has, over the years, rebelled enough against his own whips to have earned the right to be heard. To swelling agreement he asked: 'Will the Government protect our veterans or sacrifice them to politically motivated lawyers trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies?' There followed, from Sir Keir, a 15-sentence reply that was oddly tone-deaf and, I fear, horribly revealing. For it was quickly evident that Sir David's line about 'politically motivated lawyers' had irked Sir Keir. Touched a nerve, you might even say. He complained that the final part of Sir David's question had lacked 'seriousness'. 'We have to get this right,' he said primly, 'but we don't get there by cheapening the debate. It's not about political point scoring.' 'Cheapening the debate' and 'scoring points'? If anyone were guilty of that, it wasn't David Davis. The House did not warm to Sir Keir's reply. Some MPs growled at it. Sir David himself looked startled that the Prime Minister had responded with such lack of, well, seriousness. As for Col Collins and his men, they flinched not an inch, or in the case of the hard-as-mesquite man, a twig. One sensed that they were unsurprised. Soldiers, and others who put their lives on the line for our safety, seldom have much time for lawyers. After PMQs there was an urgent question about the future of jury trials, which are under threat. During this discussion a justice minister, Sarah Sackman KC, spoke of the 'revered judge' who had come up with this grotty proposal. One often hears lawyers describe judges as 'distinguished' (they love the word). But 'revered'? That is quite a leap. Ms Sackman, who was on wearisomely partisan form, trilled away about how non-jury trials would be quicker and more efficient. Down my neck ran a chill.
Arabian Business
13-06-2025
- Business
- Arabian Business
Is it really too morbid to talk about a Will?
I often get asked by family members and friends about my role at the DIFC Courts, and when I tell them about our Wills Service, they usually ask me the same question: 'Isn't it a bit morbid to talk about a Will?' I can certainly acknowledge that in most cultures the idea of preparing for life after we're gone is a sensitive subject. Whether due to discomfort, cultural hesitation, or the simple belief that it can always wait, many people avoid the conversation altogether, and it too often becomes a conversation we never have. But when that conversation is delayed too long, it is families and loved ones who are left to deal with the consequences. Legal delays, frozen assets, and unresolved guardianship decisions are just a few of the challenges that can come up when there is no Will in place. This issue is especially relevant today as people tend to live more internationally than ever before. Many individuals and families have assets spread across borders, own businesses or properties in different jurisdictions, and are raising children in countries they did not originally call home. With this global lifestyle comes a growing need for clarity and protection. The DIFC Courts Wills Service was created to respond to exactly those needs. It provides a secure, accessible, and legally recognised solution for non-Muslims with assets in the UAE. Established as a joint initiative between the Government of Dubai and the DIFC Courts, the service gives individuals the ability to register a Will that reflects not only their personal wishes, but also their family and their legacy. Authorised under Dubai Law No. 15 of 2017, the service assures that Wills are both enforceable and aligned with the UAE's public policy considerations. This is not just about wealth, it's about responsibility. It's about putting in place clear plans that can protect the people and assets that matter most. Today, the DIFC Courts Wills Service offers six types of Wills. Individuals can register a full Will that covers all categories including, real estate, business shares, financial accounts, and digital assets. Alternatively, they may choose a more focused Will covering only one category. For example, a Digital Assets Will allows individuals to assign cryptocurrencies and other supported digital assets to beneficiaries using the DIFC Courts' non-custodial wallet. Each option is designed to be practical and secure, with the entire process available online. Registration appointments are conducted by video conference and customers can use self-generating Will templates on our website or use a lawyer to assist with drafting. Once completed, Wills can be signed electronically, making the service fully accessible for people who travel frequently or live abroad. Once registered, the Will is securely encrypted and stored in the DIFC Courts' system, with a copy provided to the individual. What makes the service even more effective is that it goes beyond registration. In the event of death, DIFC Courts have full legal power to enforce Wills and issue the required probate orders to ensure the instructions in the Will are followed. In a region where family, stability, and legacy are deeply rooted, preparing a Will is one of the most important acts of care a person can take in these times. Yet it is often seen as something only for the wealthy or elderly. That perception is changing. Across boardrooms, living rooms, and legal offices, the message is becoming clearer, preparing for the future is no longer a luxury. What was once considered a personal choice is now understood as a practical responsibility. Dubai has long positioned itself as a global hub for business, law, and innovation. The legal infrastructure here reflects that role. It supports those who are building lives and investing in the region, regardless of where they are from. The DIFC Courts' Wills Service is a key part of that infrastructure. It allows individuals to plan for the future with confidence, supported by a system that understands the realities of modern life. So, is it really too morbid to talk about a will? Whether you consider it morbid or not, preparing a Will is not simply a legal formality. It is a thoughtful step towards taking responsibility for what we leave behind. It means protecting the people we care about, honouring the life we have built, and making sure our intentions, and therefore our legacy, are clearly understood and respected.
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk attacked the courts. Now they're his best hope against Trump.
In the end, the fight between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may see the latter turning to the same institution that he has tried to tear down over the last year in the president's name: the courts. And the truth is, even the richest man in the world deserves legal protection. That's how the Constitution and the rule of law work, despite Musk's best efforts to run over both. Musk spent months and hundreds of millions of dollars to support Trump's campaign in 2024. He then spent the first several months of Trump's second presidency helping to cut government programs and employees and criticizing the administration's foes. One frequent target of his attacks has been the courts. He called for the impeachment of judges who resisted the administration's agenda and even tried to sway a judicial election in Wisconsin for a seat on its Supreme Court. Last month, the Republican majority in the House (which Musk claims to have saved) passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would explode the deficit, cut taxes mostly for the wealthy, cut services for the poor and kill the tax break for electronic vehicles such as Teslas. Earlier this week, Musk began speaking out against the bill, calling it 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.' The feud became more personal Thursday, with Trump criticizing Musk in the Oval Office. As Musk continued to fire back, Trump said he will explore cutting his administration's extensive contracts with Musk's companies, including Starlink and SpaceX. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump wrote. Musk likewise doubled down, sharing footage of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and approving a social media post that called for Trump's impeachment. By the end of the day, Musk had gestured at conciliation, but as of Friday, the president was not in the same mood, with a senior White House aide telling NBC News that Trump was 'not interested' in a call to cool tensions. So, where might Musk turn to stop the Trump train from running over his companies? It wasn't long ago that Musk threatened to use his wealth to fund primary challenges against any Republican who might seek to rein in Musk's activities through his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. But the leverage there relied as much on Trump's sway over the GOP base as on Musk's funds. It is certainly possible that Musk could spend enough to sway elected officials to slow down such attacks on his companies. Yet such an approach, even if successful, would take a significant amount of time, with only marginal gains in the short term. Ironically, should the president seek to cut the federal government's ties with Musk's companies based on his criticism, it is the courts that will likely serve as the best forum in which to challenge any retribution. Over the last month, three law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have all succeeded in defeating Trump's efforts to punish them for standing up to him. They have all relied, in part, on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from last year, NRA v. Vullo. In that case, a unanimous court found that a government official in New York could not punish the NRA and the companies with which it did business for the organization's political speech (in that case, opposing gun regulation). Under the First Amendment, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, 'government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.' One would be hard-pressed to say that what the administration is threatening to do against Musk's companies doesn't fall squarely under the prohibitions the court identified in that case. Despite railing against the institutions that might stand in the way of his and Trump's agenda for months, Musk will now have to trust in those institutions. But that is how our First Amendment, our courts and the rule of law function; they typically protect even their fiercest critics. This article was originally published on
