Many inventors file their own patents hoping to save time and money. This is often the costliest mistake of all. DIY filing often results in vague, weak, or incomplete patent claims that are either rejected or, worse, easily worked around by competitors.
The post Patent Sin #6. Amateurism: The Mad Scientist Mistake of Self-Filing Without a Patent Attorney appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #6. Amateurism: The Mad Scientist Mistake of Self-Filing Without a Patent Attorney

With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions, the rules around inventorship are more crucial than ever.
• The Rule (per Updated USPTO Guidance, November 2025): Only natural persons (human beings) can be inventors or joint inventors on U.S. patent applications.
The post Patent Sin #5. Impersonation: Using Generative AI and Claiming You’re the Inventor appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #5. Impersonation: Using Generative AI and Claiming You’re the Inventor

Even if your invention is new (novel), you may not obtain a patent if it is deemed obvious.
The Test: The invention must not be an obvious extension or modification of existing work in the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field (PHOSITA).
The post Patent Sin #4. Obviousness: Just an “Expected” Variation appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #4. Obviousness: Just an “Expected” Variation

A patent application must contain a complete disclosure of the invention. If the written description contains insufficient or vague detail, it will be rejected for lack of clarity or for not sufficiently enabling the invention.
The post Patent Sin #3. Omission: The Ghostly Details of a Vague or Incomplete Application appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #3. Omission: The Ghostly Details of a Vague or Incomplete Application

The Horror: Wasting Money on a Patent Application for an Invention That Lacks Novelty
Inventors often submit patent applications assuming their idea is entirely new. However, the number one reason patents get rejected is prior art conflicts. Prior art is any information related to your invention before your filing date made public anywhere in the world.
The post Patent Sin #2. Redundancy: The Dead-on-Arrival Patent Application appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #2. Redundancy: The Dead-on-Arrival Patent Application

Before you file your patent application, you need to know this: The USPTO is a graveyard for brilliant ideas killed by paperwork, bad timing, and simple legal errors. I’ll show you Six Legal Sins that send even great inventions to the patent graveyard. Mistakes that can cost you all your international rights, invalidate your patent before it’s even granted, and waste tens of thousands of dollars. It’s smarter and cheaper to prevent a nightmare than to cure it.
The post Six Legal Sins That Kill Your Invention and Send it to the Patent Graveyard appeared first on King Patent Law
Continue Reading Six Legal Sins That Kill Your Invention and Send it to the Patent Graveyard

Inventors love to talk about their creations. They’re excited about them and want validation, investor feedback, and early market buzz. But the very first time you disclose your invention publicly, whether it’s on a social media post, a trade show demonstration, a sales pitch, or a tech journal, you start the clock ticking on your patent rights.
The post Patent Sin #1. Oversharing: The Self-Inflicted Wound from Sharing Your Invention Before Filing appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Patent Sin #1. Oversharing: The Self-Inflicted Wound from Sharing Your Invention Before Filing

The unauthorized use of artificial intelligence, or AI, to clone or duplicate a celebrity’s likeness, particularly their voice or image, often called a deepfake or digital replica, has led to a rapid but fragmented legal response. Because no single federal statute directly addresses this issue yet, the legal battle is being fought primarily under state-level right of publicity laws.
The post The Infernal Deepfake Influencer Imitation appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading The Infernal Deepfake Influencer Imitation

Now let’s step right up to learn a horror story of a violation of the right of publicity. The right of publicity is why, for instance, Tom Waits successfully sued Frito-Lay and its advertising agency Tracy-Locke, Inc., for using a singer whose voice sounded exactly like his in a commercial for SalsaRio Doritos and with music that strongly evoked Waits’ “Step Right Up,” perhaps one of his best known songs.
The post Step Right Up to Learn a Horror Story of a Violation of the Right of Publicity appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Step Right Up to Learn a Horror Story of a Violation of the Right of Publicity

The creator’s greatest asset, often more valuable than any single video, is their personal brand: their name, voice, signature look, and unique style. This is protected by the overlapping areas of trademark law and the right of publicity.
The post Protecting Your Brand, Name, Likeness, and Voice from the Reputational Whirlpool appeared first on King Patent Law.
Continue Reading Protecting Your Brand, Name, Likeness, and Voice from the Reputational Whirlpool

The consequences of getting the legal details about transparency and disclosure wrong can be terrifying. In this case, they can include fines, class action lawsuits, and the destruction of consumer trust. The Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, enforces the law that prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices, which includes misleading advertising. The rule is simple. If there is a material connection between the brand and the endorser or the influencer, that connection must be must be clearly and conspicuously shown.
The post Bad Influence: Don’t Ignore the FTC’s Rules About Transparency and Disclosures for Influencer Marketing appeared first on…
Continue Reading Bad Influence: Don’t Ignore the FTC’s Rules About Transparency and Disclosures for Influencer Marketing

Let’s look at the horror story of overreaching licenses and unintended assignments. The true horror happens when a contract is poorly drafted or poorly understood. For instance, an influencer thinks they’re giving the brand permission to use a short TikTok video for one month, but the contract grants a perpetual royalty-free worldwide license to use the content in any medium now known or later devised. That creator has effectively given the brand permission to use that short clip forever in any context, print ads or television or any other context or medium, without paying the creator another dime.
The post…
Continue Reading The Horror Story of Overreaching Licenses and Unintended Assignments

When a creator, influencer, or filmmaker produces a piece of content for a brand, such as a video, a custom song, a photo, or an edit, the key question is: Who owns the finished work?
The law provides two main paths for a brand to obtain rights to content.
The first is copyright assignment or licensing, which is transfer of ownership or permission to use. This is the most common way ownership of copyright rights is handled between a business and an influencer or marketing agency.
The post Copyright Horror: Did a Siren’s Song Make You Sign Away Your Content …
Continue Reading Copyright Horror: Did a Siren’s Song Make You Sign Away Your Content Forever?