With regard to unregistered copyrights, traditional methods of filing state security interests are sufficient. Patent Law states that „the assignment, grant, or transfer is void to any subsequent buyer or mortgagee against valuable consideration without notice, unless it is registered with the [USPTO] within three months of its date or before the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.“ 35 U.S.C§ 261. In addition, the Federal Circuit asserted in diktat that a secured creditor should register the interest in the security with the USPTO in order to perfect the interest of the guarantee to a bona faith buyer or borrower. See Rhone-Poulence Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For patents, the interest of protection should be filed with the USPTO. Section 9-311 has created some uncertainty for lenders who wish to perfect a security interest in a borrower`s brands.
Although the Lanham Act does not explicitly provide for Section 9 of the CSCE, it does provide for a system for registering trademark transfers within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which is a constructive communication to all subsequent purchasers. See 15 U.S.C§ 1060 (2014). However, the USPTO has stated that other documents relating to the ownership of trademark applications or registrations, including security interests, may also be registered with the same system. See 37 C.F.R. § 3.11; TMEP § 503.02. The cost of registering an IP security agreement with the USPTO with respect to ownership in a trademark registration and/or trademark application is forty dollars (40 $US) for the first property and 25 $US for each additional property in the same document.  For example, if an IP security agreement contains twelve (12) trademarks and six (6) trademark applications, the cost imposed by the USPTO is $40 for the first of eighteen (18) properties plus $25 by the remaining seventeen (17) properties or US$425 for a total cost of $465. Federally registered trademarks are governed by the Lanham Act. However, the Lanham Act does not specifically address the issue of security interests.
Therefore, Article 9 of the CSCE is not anticipated and most jurisdictions have been able to find that the filing of a UCC-1 funding declaration is sufficient to perfect an interest in trademark security. In this case too, lenders or venture capitalists should always submit a short-term IP security agreement to the USPTO in a timely manner as best practices to inform lenders and subsequent buyers. At regular intervals, we ask questions about the further development of the security interests of intellectual property (including patents, copyrights and trademarks), together „intellectual property“. There seems to be a growing interest in this area, which we question by several factors (for example. B increase in credit by financial institutions (increase of 8.3% Q1 between 2013 and 2014)); increase in bankruptcy activity (4414 business filings in South Carolina by September 30, 2014 compared to 4490 for the whole of 2013) and the continued increase in intellectual property creation (the number of patents granted to inventors and companies in South Carolina continues to increase, as do patents granted throughout the country). Like the Lanham Act (which governs trademarks), the Patent Act on the further development of patent security interests remains silent. Therefore, Article 9 of the CSCE remains at stake and the lender should file a UCC-1 financing statement with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in order to further its interest in patent security. Patent law deals with ownership in patents and some courts have interpreted it to mean that a protection interest should be registered by the USPTO in order to perfect and protect a bona faith buyer or borrower. . . .