Trademark & Intellectual Property Attorneys

The “bundle of sticks” is a way of describing intellectual property as a set of separate rights, not a single asset. Those rights can include the ability to use, license, transfer, restrict, or enforce the IP, and each one can be divided, limited, or assigned independently.

For example, a company may own the underlying IP but license certain rights to partners under defined terms. In a transaction, those same rights may be split further across jurisdictions, industries, or use cases.

Understanding which “sticks” you own—and which you’ve given away—is critical. Most IP issues in disputes and transactions come down to gaps or inconsistencies in how those rights were structured, documented, or transferred.

Federal trademark registration usually starts before the application is filed. A good clearance search can identify conflicting marks, naming problems, and other issues while there is still time to change course. From there, the application must accurately identify the owner, the goods or services being protected, and whether the mark is already in use or is being filed on an intent-to-use basis.

After filing, a USPTO examining attorney reviews the application. The examiner may approve it, raise technical issues, or issue an Office Action based on concerns such as likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness. If the application clears examination, it is published so third parties have an opportunity to oppose the registration. Intent-to-use applications require an additional showing that the mark is actually being used in commerce before registration can issue.

For businesses, the important question is usually not just “Can we register this trademark?” It is whether the filing protects the brand the way the company actually uses it and expects to grow. We help clients think through clearance, filing strategy, ownership, classes of goods and services, USPTO responses, and the longer-term value of the trademark portfolio—not simply getting an application on file.

Technically, no. You can file a trademark application yourself. But doing so can create problems that are much more expensive than the legal fees you were trying to save.

A poorly prepared application can be rejected, filed in the wrong class, identify the wrong owner, or describe the goods and services too narrowly—or too broadly. You may end up with a registration that does not actually protect the parts of the business you thought it did.

The bigger risk is clearance. A basic USPTO search is not the same thing as a comprehensive trademark search. Another business may have superior common-law rights even without a federal registration, and those rights may not be obvious from the USPTO database alone. If you build a brand, spend heavily on advertising, and then learn that someone else has better rights, the cost can be enormous.

Saving a little money at the filing stage can put the brand—and, for some companies, a meaningful part of the business—at risk. For marks that matter, the better approach is usually to have experienced trademark counsel and a reputable search provider evaluate the name before significant money is invested in it.

Trademarks protect brands and identifiers. Patents protect inventions and technical innovations. Copyrights protect original creative works like software, content, and media.

QSBS benefits under Section 1202 depend on the company being an “active” business—not just a passive holder of intellectual property.

If IP is separated into a holding entity and merely licensed back without sufficient operational activity, the company can jeopardize eligibility for QSBS treatment, including the potential $10M+ tax-free gain on exit.

We structure IP ownership and licensing strategies to preserve both protection and QSBS eligibility—so safeguarding your intellectual property does not come at the expense of your most valuable tax incentives.

Not necessarily. One of the biggest risks to corporate IP is a break in the “chain of title” caused by AI-generated assets.

U.S. copyright law still requires meaningful human authorship. If content, code, or other assets are generated primarily by AI, traditional work-for-hire or assignment provisions may not be enough to secure ownership. In some cases, those assets may not be protectable at all.

We help companies structure workflows, agreements, and documentation to establish the necessary human contribution and preserve ownership—so core assets are protectable, transferable, and defensible in transactions and disputes.

Potentially—but not in the way most companies assume.

You generally cannot register an entire codebase and expect it to hold up if significant portions were generated by AI. Because current law does not recognize AI as an “author,” protection depends on the human contribution to the final product.

That means focusing on the human decisions—the selection, arrangement, and refinement of AI-generated output—that turn raw code into a proprietary system.

We help companies document that contribution and structure development workflows so AI-assisted code remains protectable, transferable, and defensible in transactions and disputes.