# Usage: curl -sSL https://seed.show/intellectual.property.us | bash -s <install-path>
# <install-path> is the directory where the file should land.

set -euo pipefail
[ -z "${1:-}" ] && {
  echo "install requires a path: curl -sSL https://seed.show/intellectual.property.us | bash -s <install-path>" >&2
  exit 1
}
TARGET="$1"
mkdir -p "$TARGET"
DEST="$TARGET/seed-fold.vHGMYr.folded.md"

cat > "$DEST" <<'PORTDOWN_3102F9BB'
<!--
This is a `.folded.md` archive — a directory packed into one markdown
file. The markers below are load-bearing; don't edit them directly.

To unpack (requires bash — if you have no shell, tell the user):
  1. curl -sSLf https://fold.dom.vin/skill | bash -s <INSTALL_DIR>
  2. <INSTALL_DIR>/fold/scripts/unfold <this-file>
     (or: unfold <this-file>  if fold/scripts is on your PATH)
-->

---
fold: true
marker: 779c67
at: 2026-05-07T16:16:13Z
root: seed-pack.u3rmfC
---

<!--fold:779c67@file path="README.md" mode="644"-->
# intellectual.property.us

US intellectual property context for agents. What to know before analyzing any IP question.

**Do not hallucinate:** IP strategy is jurisdiction-specific. Patent terms, filing fees, registration costs, and USPTO/USCO procedures change. Fetch current status from sources before advising. This file contains structural facts that are stable; point users to authoritative sources for current fees, deadlines, and fee schedules.

## Mental model: four distinct protection regimes

US intellectual property is not a single system. It comprises four separate legal regimes — each with its own governing statute, administrative body, protection term, and enforcement mechanism. Conflating them produces wrong answers. Identify the regime before advising.

**Patents** protect inventions — novel, non-obvious, useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. Governed by Title 35 of the US Code. Administered by the USPTO. Utility patents last 20 years from the earliest effective US filing date. Design patents last 15 years from the grant date. Plant patents last 20 years from filing. Rights are granted in exchange for public disclosure; the invention enters the public domain at expiration. Patent protection requires active prosecution — rights do not arise automatically. Rights are territorial: a US patent does not protect against foreign copying. For current USPTO filing fees, fetch https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule.

**Trademarks** protect brand identifiers — words, names, symbols, logos, sounds, colors, and trade dress that distinguish the source of goods or services in commerce. Governed by the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.). Administered by the USPTO. Protection is indefinite as long as the mark is in use in commerce and the owner files required maintenance documents (Declaration of Use at years 5–6, renewal every 10 years). Rights derive from actual use in commerce, not from registration — common law trademark rights arise automatically upon use. Registration provides constructive nationwide notice, a presumption of validity, and a basis for customs recordation, but is not required to have a trademark. Trademark rights expire when the mark is abandoned or becomes generic (genericness is a defense to infringement and a ground for cancellation).

**Copyrights** protect original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium — literary, musical, dramatic, pictorial, audiovisual, architectural, and software works. Governed by Title 17 of the US Code. Administered by the US Copyright Office (USCO). For works created after January 1, 1978: the term is life of the author plus 70 years. For works made for hire: 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. Copyright vests automatically at the moment of creation and fixation — no registration, no notice, no publication required. The © symbol and registration are not prerequisites for protection, but registration is a prerequisite for enforcement (see below).

**Trade secrets** protect confidential business information that derives economic value from being kept secret — formulas, algorithms, customer lists, manufacturing processes, business strategies. Governed by the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836) at the federal level and by state law (virtually all states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act). Protection is indefinite as long as the owner takes reasonable measures to maintain secrecy. There is no registration system. Trade secret protection ends the moment secrecy is lost — through independent discovery, reverse engineering, or failure to protect. Trade secret protection and patent protection are mutually exclusive for the same information: once you file a patent application, the information will eventually be published.

## What agents get wrong

**Patent term — 20 years from filing, not 17 years from grant.**
Pre-1995, utility patents lasted 17 years from the grant date. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994) changed the term to 20 years from the earliest effective US filing date, effective June 8, 1995. Design patents: the Hague Agreement (2015) moved the term from 14 years from grant to 15 years from grant. Use 20 years from filing for utility patents and 15 years from grant for design patents.

**First-to-file vs. first-to-invent — the US converted in 2013.**
Before the America Invents Act, the US operated on a first-to-invent system and priority disputes went to interference proceedings at the USPTO. The AIA (effective for applications filed on or after March 16, 2013) converted the US to a first-inventor-to-file system. The patent right goes to the first inventor to file, not the first to conceive. There is a 12-month grace period for the inventor's own prior disclosures, but the broader pre-AIA third-party grace period is gone. Interference logic does not govern new applications filed after March 16, 2013.

**Copyright registration — not required for protection, but required for enforcement.**
Copyright vests automatically at creation. But under 17 U.S.C. § 411, a copyright owner generally cannot file a federal infringement lawsuit until registration has been obtained (or refused). Under 17 U.S.C. § 412, a copyright owner cannot obtain statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringement that began before registration — only actual damages, which are often difficult to prove and small. The practical implication: if you do not register before infringement occurs (or within 3 months of first publication), you lose the most powerful remedies. Registration should be treated as standard practice for commercially valuable works. Always pair "you don't need to register" with "but you do need to register to sue, and to get statutory damages." For current registration fees, fetch https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html.

**Work-for-hire for independent contractors — written agreement AND statutory category required.**
Copyright ownership defaults to the author. The work-for-hire doctrine shifts ownership to the commissioning party in two situations: (1) works created by employees within the scope of employment are automatically works for hire; and (2) works created by independent contractors are works for hire only if a written agreement signed by both parties expressly designates the work as a work made for hire AND the work falls within one of nine statutory categories listed in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (contributions to collective works, parts of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, translations, supplementary works, compilations, instructional texts, tests, answer material for a test, or atlases). Most software, standalone graphic design, and standalone photography fall outside the nine categories. Without a written copyright assignment, the contractor retains ownership. Always distinguish employee vs. contractor context and verify the statutory category.

**AI and inventorship — only natural persons can be named inventors.**
The Patent Act requires that inventors be "individuals." In Thaler v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit held that AI systems cannot be named as inventors. The USPTO's 2024 guidance confirmed that only natural persons can be inventors, while clarifying that AI-assisted inventions remain patentable — provided a human being made a "significant contribution" to each claimed invention (the Pannu factors apply). If AI tools generated the novel concept and the human merely recognized it, inventorship may be insufficient. Fetch https://www.uspto.gov/initiatives/artificial-intelligence/guidance for current USPTO AI guidance.

**Trademark distinctiveness — protection requires more than just using a word.**
Not all marks are protectable. Marks are evaluated on a spectrum: fanciful marks (invented words — Kodak, Xerox) receive the strongest protection; arbitrary marks (common words applied to unrelated goods — Apple for computers) are strong; suggestive marks (require imagination to connect to the product — Coppertone for sunscreen) are protectable; descriptive marks (directly describe a feature — Cold and Creamy for ice cream) are only protectable with proof of acquired secondary meaning; generic terms (the common name for the goods) are never protectable and cannot be trademarked. Agents frequently advise that descriptive marks are protectable without flagging the secondary meaning requirement, or that a company can trademark a generic term for its product category.

## What AI is changing

These are live questions with incomplete legal resolution as of early 2026. Fetch current sources before advising.

**AI-generated works and copyright ownership.** The Copyright Office's position is that copyright requires human authorship. Works generated entirely by AI without human creative control are not eligible for copyright protection. Works where humans make sufficient creative choices in the AI-assisted output may qualify, but the threshold for "sufficient" is unresolved and being litigated. Practically: AI-generated marketing copy, images, and code produced without meaningful human creative selection likely cannot be copyrighted. This affects ownership chain analysis for AI-heavy workflows. Fetch https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ for current Copyright Office AI guidance and rulemakings.

**AI as prior art.** AI systems generate enormous volumes of output — text, images, code, designs. Whether AI-generated output constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) or § 103 (obviousness) is an open question. The USPTO has solicited comment on this. A human-filed patent application may face novelty challenges from AI-generated material that was publicly available before the filing date. This matters for freedom-to-operate analysis and for assessing the strength of a patent portfolio.

**AI patent applications.** Patent examiners are seeing applications where AI tools played a significant role in the inventive process. The inventorship requirement (human significant contribution to each claim) creates practical risk: if a company cannot show that a human inventor made a Pannu-factor-satisfying contribution to a specific claim, that claim may be invalidated. Companies using AI in R&D should document human contributions to claimed inventions at the time of invention, not after the fact.

**Trade secrets in AI training data.** Training an AI model on data that includes trade secrets — whether through data scraping, licensed datasets, or employee-contributed materials — can constitute misappropriation under the DTSA if the training data was obtained by improper means or used without authorization. Whether the trained model "contains" or "embodies" the trade secret in a legally cognizable way is being litigated. Companies building or licensing AI models should audit training data provenance for trade secret exposure.

**AI and trademark infringement.** Generative AI that produces brand identifiers (logos, trade dress, slogans) similar to existing marks may produce infringing output. The secondary liability question — whether the AI company or the user is liable — is unresolved. AI-assisted search and advertising tools that use trademarks as targeting signals face ongoing Lanham Act challenges.

## Stable reference facts

**The four regimes at a glance**

| Regime | Protects | Term | Registration | Federal body |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patent | Inventions | 20 yrs from filing (utility); 15 yrs from grant (design) | Required (USPTO) | USPTO |
| Trademark | Brand identifiers | Indefinite with use | Optional but strongly beneficial (USPTO) | USPTO |
| Copyright | Expressive works | Life+70 (or 95/120 for works for hire) | Automatic; registration required to sue | USCO |
| Trade secret | Confidential business info | Indefinite with secrecy | None | N/A (DTSA / state law) |

**Key statutes**
- Patent Act: 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. — governs patentability, prosecution, and enforcement
- Lanham Act: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. — governs trademarks, federal registration, and infringement
- Copyright Act: 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. — governs copyright subsistence, ownership, registration, and infringement
- DTSA: 18 U.S.C. § 1836 — federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation (enacted 2016); supplements state UTSA enactments

**USPTO filing systems**
- Patents: filed through Patent Center; full-text search via PatFT and AppFT
- Trademarks: filed through TEAS (Trademark Electronic Application System); searched via TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) before filing

**DTSA trade secret elements**
A DTSA claim requires: (1) the information qualifies as a trade secret (derives independent economic value from secrecy, and reasonable measures are taken to maintain secrecy); (2) the defendant misappropriated the trade secret (acquired by improper means, or disclosed/used without consent); (3) the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.

**Patent vs. trade secret — the structural choice**
These are often mutually exclusive for the same information. Patent: 20-year monopoly with public disclosure required; enforceable against independent inventors; expires. Trade secret: potentially indefinite protection with no disclosure; lost if independently discovered or reverse-engineered; no expiration if secrecy is maintained. The strategic choice turns on: whether the invention can be reverse-engineered from the product (if yes, trade secret protection is weak), whether a 20-year monopoly is worth public disclosure, and whether the competitive advantage outlives a 20-year patent term (if yes, trade secret may be preferable).
<!--fold:779c67@file path="glossary.md" mode="644"-->
# glossary

Key IP terms. Precision matters in IP analysis; these are not casual synonyms.

## Patent terms

**Claim.** The numbered paragraphs at the end of a patent that define the legal scope of protection. Only what is claimed is protected. Independent claims stand alone; dependent claims incorporate a prior claim and narrow it. Claim construction — interpreting what a claim covers — is the central legal question in most patent disputes.

**Specification.** The written description of the invention in the patent document, excluding the claims. Must enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to make and use the invention. Also must provide written description support for each claim element. Inadequate specification is a basis for invalidity.

**Prosecution history estoppel.** Limits on claim scope that arise from statements and amendments made during USPTO prosecution. If a patent applicant narrows a claim to overcome a prior art rejection, that applicant (and successors) cannot later argue that the claim covers the surrendered territory under the doctrine of equivalents. Prosecution history is public record and is routinely used in infringement and invalidity analysis.

**Prior art.** Everything that was publicly known, used, or published before the effective filing date of the patent application. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claimed invention cannot be patented if it is anticipated by a single prior art reference — meaning the reference discloses every element of the claim. Under § 103, a claimed invention cannot be patented if the differences between the invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.

**Obviousness (TSM vs. KSR).** The pre-KSR test for obviousness (Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation, or TSM) required finding a specific suggestion or motivation in the prior art to combine references. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), the Supreme Court held that TSM is not the only test — obviousness is evaluated using common sense, known techniques, and ordinary creativity. Post-KSR, a simple combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results is often obvious. The TSM test survives as one useful framework but is no longer the ceiling.

**Inherency.** A doctrine holding that a prior art reference anticipates a claim even if it does not explicitly disclose an element, if that element is necessarily present or necessarily produced by the disclosed process. Used in both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103) analysis. Contested inherency — whether something is "necessarily" present — is a frequent flashpoint in patent litigation.

**Inter partes review (IPR).** A post-grant trial proceeding at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that allows third parties to challenge the validity of a patent based on prior art (patents and printed publications). Available after a patent issues; petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. Final written decisions have preclusive effect. IPR has become the primary mechanism for invalidating issued patents, often faster and cheaper than district court litigation.

**Doctrine of equivalents.** Extends patent protection beyond the literal claim language to cover insubstantially different substitutes. An element is equivalent if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result (the function-way-result test). Constrained by prosecution history estoppel and the prior art.

## Trademark terms

**Likelihood of confusion.** The standard for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. No actual confusion is required — the test is whether consumers are likely to be confused about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of goods or services. Courts apply multi-factor tests (the DuPont factors in the TTAB; circuit-specific versions in federal courts) that weigh: similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods/services, channels of trade, sophistication of buyers, strength of the senior mark, evidence of actual confusion, and others.

**Trade dress.** The overall commercial image or product packaging that identifies and distinguishes a product's source — including color, shape, texture, graphics, and visual impression. Protectable under the Lanham Act if it is distinctive (either inherently or through acquired secondary meaning) and non-functional. Product design trade dress is never inherently distinctive (Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros., 2000) and always requires proof of secondary meaning.

**Secondary meaning (acquired distinctiveness).** Evidence that consumers have come to associate a primarily descriptive or generic-seeming designation with a single source, despite the designation's original non-distinctive character. Required for descriptive marks and product design trade dress. Demonstrated through long use, sales volume, advertising spend, consumer surveys, and instances of copying.

**Dilution.** A cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) available only to owners of famous marks. Protects against uses that blur the distinctiveness of the mark (associating it with dissimilar goods — e.g., Tiffany for hamburgers) or tarnish it (associating it with disreputable products or contexts). Dilution does not require likelihood of confusion and is available regardless of whether the defendant's use is on competing goods.

**Genericness.** A mark that is the common name for the goods or services it covers cannot be trademarked. Generic terms are available for all competitors to use. Marks can become generic through consumer use ("genericide") — Aspirin, Thermos, Escalator, and Yo-Yo were all once protected marks that became generic. Genericide is a defense to infringement and a ground for cancellation of a registration.

## Copyright terms

**Fair use.** An affirmative defense to copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Courts weigh four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use (commercial vs. educational; transformative vs. reproductive — transformativeness is the dominant factor post-Campbell); (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (factual works get less protection than creative works); (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; (4) the effect on the market for the original. No factor is determinative; courts conduct a holistic analysis. Fair use is unpredictable — it is a legal defense evaluated case-by-case, not a license.

**DMCA safe harbor.** 17 U.S.C. § 512 limits the copyright infringement liability of online service providers (OSPs) that host or transmit user-generated content. To qualify: the OSP must have a designated agent registered with the Copyright Office, must not have actual knowledge of infringing material (or must act expeditiously upon notice), must not financially benefit from the infringement while having the right and ability to control it, and must implement a repeat-infringer termination policy. The safe harbor is lost if the OSP has "red flag" knowledge. Notice-and-takedown procedures under § 512(c) define the mechanics of the takedown and counter-notice process.

**Work made for hire.** See the main file for the two-category analysis (employee vs. independent contractor). The practical consequence: the employer or commissioning party is treated as the "author" for copyright purposes, owns the copyright from creation, and holds the full copyright term (95/120 years rather than life+70).

**IP assignment vs. license.** An assignment transfers ownership of an IP right — the assignee becomes the new owner. A license grants permission to exercise some or all rights without transferring ownership — the licensor retains title. An exclusive license grants rights to one licensee and prohibits the licensor from licensing the same rights to others; it functions like an assignment in some contexts but does not transfer title. A non-exclusive license can be granted to multiple parties simultaneously. Standing to sue for infringement typically requires ownership or an exclusive license; non-exclusive licensees generally lack standing absent explicit contractual grant.

## Trade secret terms

**Misappropriation.** The DTSA defines misappropriation as: (A) acquisition of a trade secret by someone who knows or has reason to know it was acquired by improper means; or (B) disclosure or use of a trade secret without express or implied consent, by a person who used improper means to acquire it, knew the secret was acquired under an obligation to maintain secrecy, or learned of the secret from someone under such an obligation. Improper means includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and electronic espionage. Independent discovery and reverse engineering are not improper means and are complete defenses.

**Reasonable measures.** To qualify for trade secret protection, the owner must take reasonable measures to keep the information secret — not perfect measures, but affirmative steps appropriate to the circumstances. Typical measures: non-disclosure agreements with employees and contractors, access controls (physical and electronic), need-to-know policies, and confidentiality notices on sensitive documents. Failure to take reasonable measures is a complete defense to a trade secret claim; courts look at the totality of the owner's security practices.
<!--fold:779c67@file path="sources.md" mode="644"-->
# sources

Fetch these at task time. Ordered by importance. Do not rely on cached values for fees, deadlines, or procedural requirements — these change.

1. USPTO fee schedule — current filing, issue, and maintenance fees for patents and trademarks; fetch before quoting any dollar amounts:
   https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule

2. USPTO: Patent full-text database (PatFT) — search granted US patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, classification; verify prior art or check a specific patent's filing and expiration dates:
   https://patft.uspto.gov/

3. USPTO: Trademark electronic search system (TESS) — search live and dead US trademark registrations before advising on clearance or filing; check mark availability and registration status:
   https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

4. USCO: Copyright registration and fees — how to register, current fees, the eCO system, what registration provides (prerequisite for suit and statutory damages):
   https://www.copyright.gov/registration/
   https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html

5. USPTO: AI and emerging technologies guidance (2024) — current USPTO guidance on AI-assisted inventions, inventorship requirements under Pannu, and how significant human contribution is evaluated:
   https://www.uspto.gov/initiatives/artificial-intelligence/guidance

6. Copyright Office: AI and copyright — current Copyright Office guidance, rulemakings, and policy positions on AI-generated works and human authorship requirements:
   https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

7. Cornell LII: Intellectual property law overview — plain-language overview of all four IP regimes with citations to primary sources:
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property

8. DTSA text — the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, for verifying trade secret elements and remedies:
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1836
<!--fold:779c67@end-->
PORTDOWN_3102F9BB

# ── post ──
MARKER=$(awk '/^---$/ { f++; if (f==2) exit; next } f==1 && /^marker:[[:space:]]/ { sub(/^marker:[[:space:]]+/, ""); print; exit }' "$DEST")
[ -z "$MARKER" ] && { echo "seed: archive has no marker — corrupt" >&2; exit 1; }
awk -v m="$MARKER" -v outdir="$TARGET" '
  BEGIN {
    # Match <!--fold:<m>@file path="X"--> with an optional mode attr after
    # the path (fold emits  mode="644"  on executables).
    file_re = "^<!--fold:" m "@file path=\"([^\"]+)\"( mode=\"[0-9]+\")?-->$"
    end_re  = "^<!--fold:" m "@end-->$"
  }
  $0 ~ end_re { if (current) close(current); exit }
  $0 ~ file_re {
    if (current) close(current)
    line = $0
    sub(/^<!--fold:[^@]+@file path="/, "", line); sub(/".*$/, "", line)
    current = outdir "/" line
    dir = current; sub(/\/[^\/]*$/, "", dir)
    if (dir != current) system("mkdir -p \"" dir "\"")
    printf "" > current
    next
  }
  current { print >> current }
' "$DEST"
SEED_EXTRACTED=$(find "$TARGET" -type f -not -path "$DEST" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)
if [ "$SEED_EXTRACTED" = "0" ]; then
  echo "seed: archive contained no files — refusing to delete the source" >&2
  echo "  archive preserved at: $DEST" >&2
  exit 1
fi
rm -f "$DEST"

echo "" >&2
echo "✓ seed unpacked → $TARGET ($SEED_EXTRACTED files)" >&2
find "$TARGET" -type f | sort | while IFS= read -r _sf; do
  echo "  ${_sf#${TARGET}/}" >&2
done
echo "" >&2
if [ -f "$TARGET/SKILL.md" ]; then
  echo "This seed contains a skill (SKILL.md). Install it in your agent's skills directory." >&2
  echo "" >&2
fi
echo "Install the seed skill if not already installed:" >&2
echo "  https://seed.show/skill" >&2
echo "" >&2
echo "Publisher prompt:" >&2
sed 's/^/  /' >&2 <<'__SEED_PROMPT_END_AC1F2B__'
US intellectual property context for agents — four regimes (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret), what agents get wrong, what AI is changing, and a glossary of key IP terms. Load this before analyzing any IP question.
__SEED_PROMPT_END_AC1F2B__
exit 0