• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Legislation

Indiana Patent Income Tax Exemption – IC 6-2-3-21.7

04 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Tax

Inventors, patent owners, and their lawyers and accountants should be aware of the Indiana Patent Income Exemption, Indiana Code 6-3-2-21.7.

The exemption aims to encourage innovation by giving entrepreneurs and small businesses a break on Indiana state income taxes. Indiana was the first state to offer this type of incentive.  In an effort to strengthen the state’s existing focus on biotech, pharmaceutical, medical device and equipment companies, the law strives to encourage new patents from Indiana companies and to make the state more attractive to new companies looking for a profitable marketplace.

The law grants a tax exemption on patent income, which includes licensing fees, royalties, patent sale or patent-covered- product sales. Note that the exemption is available only to businesses with less than 500 employees and only covers utility and plant patents, since design patents focus on ornamental features and exclude functional innovations.

IC 6-3-2-21.7
Exemption for certain income derived from patents
Sec. 21.7. (a) This section applies to a qualified patent issued to a taxpayer after December 31, 2007.
(b) As used in this section, “invention” has the meaning set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100(a).
(c) As used in this section, “qualified patent” means:
(1) a utility patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 101; or
(2) a plant patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 161;
after December 31, 2007, for an invention resulting from a development process conducted in Indiana. The term does not include a design patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 171.
(d) As used in this section, “qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer that on the effective filing date of the claimed invention:
(1) is either:
(A) an individual or corporation, if the number of employees of the individual or corporation, including affiliates as specified in 13 CFR 121.103, does not exceed five hundred (500) persons; or
(B) a nonprofit organization or nonprofit corporation as

specified in:
(i) 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(A) or 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(B); or
(ii) IC 23-17; and
(2) is domiciled in Indiana.
(e) Subject to subsections (g) and (h), in determining adjusted gross income or taxable income under IC 6-3-1-3.5 or IC 6-5.5-1-2, a qualified taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from taxation under IC 6-3-1 through IC 6-3-7 for the following:
(1) Licensing fees or other income received for the use of a qualified patent.
(2) Royalties received for the infringement of a qualified patent.
(3) Receipts from the sale of a qualified patent.
(4) Subject to subsection (f), income from the taxpayer’s own use of the taxpayer’s qualified patent to produce the claimed invention.
(f) The exemption provided by subsection (e)(4) may not exceed the fair market value of the licensing fees or other income that would be received by allowing use of the qualified taxpayer’s qualified patent by someone other than the taxpayer. The fair market value referred to in this subsection must be determined in each taxable year in which the qualified taxpayer claims an exemption under subsection (e)(4).
(g) The total amount of exemptions claimed under this section by a qualified taxpayer in a taxable year may not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000).
(h) A taxpayer may not claim an exemption under this section with respect to a particular qualified patent for more than ten (10) taxable years. Subject to the provisions of this section, the following amount of the income, royalties, or receipts described in subsection (e) from a particular qualified patent is exempt:
(1) Fifty percent (50%) for each of the first five (5) taxable years in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(2) Forty percent (40%) for the sixth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(3) Thirty percent (30%) for the seventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(4) Twenty percent (20%) for the eighth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(5) Ten percent (10%) each year for the ninth and tenth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(6) No exemption under this section for the particular qualified patent after the eleventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(i) To receive the exemption provided by this section, a qualified taxpayer must claim the exemption on the qualified taxpayer’s annual state tax return or returns in the manner prescribed by the department. The qualified taxpayer shall submit to the department all information that the department determines is necessary for the determination of the exemption provided by this section.

(j) On or before December 1 of each year, the department shall provide an evaluation report to the legislative council, the budget committee, and the Indiana economic development corporation. The evaluation report must contain the following:
(1) The number of taxpayers claiming an exemption under this section.
(2) The sum of all the exemptions claimed under this section.
(3) The North American Industry Classification System code for each taxpayer claiming an exemption under this section.
(4) Any other information the department considers appropriate, including the number of qualified patents for which an exemption was claimed under this section.
The report required under this subsection must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.

For a full breakdown of the law,  see IP Today.

indianaflag

Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2009

08 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Legislation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

A Senate bill introduced recently, if approved, will repeal a 1999 Act barring U.S. courts from hearing claims by foreign nationals asserting rights to trademarks associated with expropriated property.  The bill would also allow U.S. farmers and ranchers to export their products to Cuba and open travel by all Americans to Cuba.  The bill, S. 1089, Promoting American Agriculture and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2009, was presented by Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and 14 others.

Section 211 of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act bars U.S. courts from hearing claims by foreign nationals asserting rights to trademarks associated with expropriated property.  It also bars the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from renewing such trademark registrations.  In 2001, however, the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that Section 211 violates WTO rules because it applies only to foreign nationals, not to U.S. citizens. Section 211 also violates the Inter-American Convention on reciprocal trademark protections. Section 9 of the 2009 Act would repeal Section 211 and bring the United States into compliance with international intellectual property obligations.

lugar_obamaWith regard to the agricultural exports, Senator Lugar stated, “Indiana farmers’ annual agricultural exports are increasing and have exceeded $2.4 billion in value.  Access to the Cuban market, located near the United States in our own hemisphere, will be a valuable opportunity for Hoosier grain, livestock, and vegetable producers, as well as Indiana’s overall economy. I remain committed to increasing trade opportunities for Indiana’s farms and businesses.”

The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Law Blog will keep you updated on whether this legislation is passed.

Indiana's New Cell Phone Law

11 Monday May 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Legislation, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

woman_car_highresHey, Indiana, leave those kids alone!  Senate Bill 16, signed last week by Governor Daniels, hopes to prevent young drivers  from using a “telecommunications device” while operating a motor vehicle.  So, kids, no more texting, talking or tweeting while behind the wheel.

SB 16 goes into effect July 1, 2009.  The pertinent language (full image below):

(4) The individual may not operate a motor vehicle while using a telecommunications device until the individual becomes eighteen (18) years of age unless the telecommunications device is being used to make a 911 emergency call.

SB 16

SB 16-2

Click here for the full text of Senate Bill 16.

The bill, heavily sponsored by AAA, is based on statistics conclusively showing that teens driving and using a cell phone is dangerous.  But I’ve seen plenty of statistics that say the same about adult drivers.  In fact, maybe the additional comfort level that comes with years of experience could make adults more prone to losing focus on the road while texting or talking.  Could this law be a precursor to some more expansive cell phone restrictions down the road?

Patent Reform Act of 2009 introduced in Congress

05 Thursday Mar 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Legislation, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Legislation, Patent

patentreformactof2009Patent reform legislation was introduced in Congress this week.  The current legislation is similar to the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which died on the Senate floor last year. If passed, the 2009 version would change the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office works, bring U.S. patent law more in line with global laws, and introduce “reasonable royalty” provisions, which would change how damages are calculated and reduce the likelihood of massive payouts for some patent holders.

The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog will keep you updated as the legislation proceeds.

Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...