Intellectual Property Trends to Watch in 2025
Introduction
Welcome to 2025—a pivotal year for intellectual property (IP) law. The rapid pace of innovation is reshaping industries, from college athletics and creative arts to global commerce and artificial intelligence. With groundbreaking developments like NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights empowering student-athletes, the rise of generative AI sparking copyright debates, and streamlined patent systems simplifying global protections, the IP landscape is evolving faster than ever.
As businesses, creators, and legal professionals navigate this changing terrain, the stakes have never been higher. Staying informed about these trends isn’t just beneficial—it’s essential to remain competitive, protect your innovations, and seize new opportunities.
In this blog, we’ll explore five critical IP trends shaping the future. Whether you’re managing a personal brand, leveraging AI tools, filing patents abroad, or preparing for USPTO trademark changes, this guide will help you adapt, stay compliant, and thrive in today’s dynamic IP environment. Let’s dive in.
1. Revenue Sharing for College Athletes
Overview of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Laws and Their Transformative Impact
The introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) laws marks one of the most transformative shifts in collegiate athletics. Previously, student-athletes were restricted from profiting from their talents, even as universities and athletic programs generated millions of dollars in revenue from their efforts. Today, NIL laws empower athletes to take control of their financial futures by monetizing their personal brands.¹
For instance, athletes can now partner with brands ranging from global giants like Nike to local businesses in their hometowns. Social media has also become a lucrative platform, with athletes earning income as influencers by promoting products, services, and campaigns directly to their followers. This transformation has leveled the playing field, allowing athletes from smaller programs or less prominent sports to capitalize on their unique stories and communities.
However, this newfound opportunity comes with its own challenges. Athletes are now navigating a world of contracts, taxes, and intellectual property protection—often with minimal guidance. Managing their brands effectively requires them to think like entrepreneurs, balancing their athletic commitments with the demands of building a business.
Emerging IP Challenges and Opportunities for Student-Athletes
One of the biggest challenges athletes face under NIL laws is protecting their personal brands. Without proper safeguards, an athlete’s name, logo, or slogan could be exploited by unauthorized third parties, resulting in missed financial opportunities or damage to their reputation.
Trademark Protection: Filing trademarks for a name, signature phrase, or logo is critical. For example, basketball star Paige Bueckers trademarked her nickname “Paige Buckets,” allowing her to maintain exclusive rights over its commercial use.
Social Media Content Ownership: With athletes relying heavily on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, understanding copyright laws for original content (e.g., videos, graphics, or custom slogans) is essential to preventing unauthorized usage.
Additionally, NIL laws differ widely by state and are continuously evolving. While some states impose minimal restrictions, others mandate that athletes disclose endorsement deals to their universities or prohibit partnerships that conflict with school sponsorship agreements. This patchwork of laws creates a compliance minefield that both athletes and universities must navigate careful.
Revenue-Sharing Models in NIL Agreements
Beyond individual deals, revenue-sharing agreements between universities and athletes are beginning to emerge as a way to distribute wealth more equitably. Some schools are exploring collective licensing programs where athletes receive a share of profits from merchandise sales featuring their likeness (e.g., jerseys, video games, or posters). These agreements represent a significant cultural shift, acknowledging athletes’ contributions to their schools' financial success.
For example, schools like Michigan and Ohio State have implemented group licensing programs that allow athletes to collectively earn revenue from university-approved merchandise and marketing initiatives. While these programs offer new income streams, they also require careful negotiation to ensure fair terms and compliance with NIL laws.
Another innovative model gaining traction involves team-wide revenue sharing for endorsements or media rights, particularly in high-revenue sports like football and basketball. These agreements foster collaboration among teammates and demonstrate the growing recognition of athletes as critical stakeholders in the college sports ecosystem.
Case Studies and Best Practices for Colleges and Athletes Navigating Revenue-Sharing Agreements
Programs like Opendorse have emerged as invaluable tools for managing NIL rights. These platforms help athletes connect with brands, manage contracts, and stay compliant with state-specific regulations. Institutions like the University of Alabama have also developed robust NIL support programs, educating athletes on everything from financial literacy to intellectual property law.²
Universities are also stepping up their support systems. The University of Alabama’s “The Advantage” program, for instance, offers resources on everything from contract negotiation to content creation, ensuring athletes are equipped to manage the complexities of NIL agreements. Meanwhile, institutions like Indiana University have introduced NIL collectives that allow athletes to benefit from pooled resources and sponsorship opportunities.
If you’re an athlete, take a proactive approach. Start by trademarking your name, logo, or slogan. Work with a legal professional to draft clear, enforceable contracts. And don’t forget the importance of education—understanding your rights is the first step to protecting them.
The Shift in College Athletics: How NIL Rights Empower Student-Athletes and Redefine Collegiate Sports
NIL laws are fundamentally reshaping college sports by treating athletes as key stakeholders rather than mere participants. This evolution isn't just about creating new revenue streams—it's about empowering athletes to control their personal narratives, establish lasting brands, and leverage their collegiate success into professional opportunities or entrepreneurial ventures.
As the NIL era matures, athletes and universities must work collaboratively to create systems that balance compliance with opportunity. Whether through trademarking, revenue-sharing agreements, or social media monetization, athletes are no longer sidelined in the financial equation—they are taking their rightful place at the center of the sports economy..
2. Generative AI and Copyrights
Introduction to Generative AI’s Capabilities and Controversies
Generative AI has become the talk of the creative industries. Tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E, and MidJourney are enabling businesses and creators to generate high-quality content with unprecedented speed and efficiency. From generating ad copy to creating digital art, the possibilities seem limitless. But with innovation comes uncertainty—particularly in the realm of intellectual property.³
As generative AI becomes more prevalent, we must grapple with questions like: Who owns AI-generated content? Can such works be copyrighted? And what happens when AI models are trained on datasets containing copyrighted material?
The AI Revolution: Overview of Generative AI’s Rapid Adoption in Creative Industries
The adoption of generative AI has been nothing short of revolutionary. In advertising, AI is crafting hyper-personalized campaigns that resonate with individual consumers. In film and television, it’s being used to create scripts, storyboards, and even digital characters. And in the music industry, AI-generated compositions are gaining traction as customizable soundtracks for games, apps, and advertisements.⁴
However, this rapid adoption also raises ethical and legal concerns. For example, what if an AI-generated piece closely resembles an existing copyrighted work? How do we balance innovation with the need to respect creators’ rights?
Legal Challenges: Who Owns AI-Generated Content?
The U.S. Copyright Office has made it clear: copyright protection requires human authorship. This means purely AI-generated works don’t qualify for copyright, leaving businesses in a precarious position. What happens if a competitor replicates your AI-generated content? Without copyright protection, your options for recourse are limited.
Furthermore, the use of copyrighted material in training datasets has sparked numerous lawsuits. In Getty Images v. Stability AI, Getty alleges that Stability AI used millions of its copyrighted images without authorization to train its generative AI models.⁵
Future Outlook: Anticipated Guidelines and Best Practices for Leveraging Generative AI Responsibly
Looking ahead, we can expect new laws to address these challenges. Governments are likely to introduce transparency requirements for AI training datasets, ensuring that copyrighted materials aren’t used without proper licensing. Businesses, meanwhile, should take proactive steps: audit their datasets, draft clear ownership agreements, and stay informed about legal developments.
3. Copyright Small Claims Court
Explanation of the U.S. Copyright Claims Board and Its Significance
The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is a game-changer for small creators. Imagine you’re a photographer and discover your work being used online without permission. Previously, pursuing legal action might have cost more than the infringement itself. With the CCB, you now have an affordable, streamlined option for resolving disputes.⁶
The CCB, introduced in 2022 under the CASE Act (Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement), allows creators to bring forward claims without the burden of high legal fees or protracted court battles. For independent creators—photographers, artists, authors, musicians, and small businesses—this new forum offers a vital opportunity to assert their rights and seek compensation when their works are used without authorization.
For example, if a photographer discovers their image being used in a marketing campaign without permission, they can file a claim with the CCB for up to $15,000 per work (with a $30,000 total cap for multiple infringements). The process is designed to be user-friendly, with forms and resources readily available online.
How the Small Claims Process Simplifies Copyright Disputes for Creatives and Small Businesses
The CCB streamlines the enforcement of copyright rights by removing many of the traditional barriers associated with federal litigation. Key features include:
Remote Hearings: All hearings take place online, allowing creators to participate without the need to travel or appear in person.
Lower Legal Costs: The CCB eliminates the need for extensive legal representation, as the process is designed to be navigable for non-lawyers. Filing fees are also much lower than those in federal court—starting at just $100.
Simplified Proceedings: The process avoids formal discovery and adheres to a straightforward timeline, making it faster and less burdensome.
Capped Damages: The CCB limits damages to $30,000 per case ($15,000 per work), ensuring the system remains focused on smaller claims that are often unfeasible to litigate in traditional courts.
These features make the CCB particularly attractive to individual creators and small businesses, providing a more accessible pathway to enforce their rights.
Limitations and Criticisms of the System
While the CCB has been hailed as a game-changer, it is not without its limitations:
Opt-Out Option for Defendants: Defendants can choose to opt out of the CCB process within 60 days of receiving notice. This opt-out provision can leave creators without recourse and force them to consider federal litigation if they still wish to pursue their claims.
Damage Caps: The $30,000 cap may not be sufficient for high-value works or extensive cases of infringement, limiting the CCB’s usefulness for creators with larger claims.
Enforcement Challenges: Even if a creator wins a case through the CCB, enforcement of the judgment can still pose challenges, especially if the defendant lacks the resources to pay.
These criticisms highlight that while the CCB is an effective tool for certain disputes, it is not a comprehensive solution for all copyright enforcement issues.
Practical Advice: When to Use the Small Claims Court and Potential Pitfalls
Creators should consider the CCB for cases that meet the following criteria:
Clear Evidence of Infringement: Successful claims require documentation, such as screenshots, metadata, or contracts, that demonstrate ownership and unauthorized use.
Modest Damages: Cases involving damages under $30,000 are well-suited for the CCB, as the system’s efficiency and cost-effectiveness make it ideal for smaller claims.
Accessible Defendants: The CCB is most effective when the infringer is reachable and unlikely to opt out of the process.
For more complex or high-stakes cases, federal court remains the better option, particularly when significant damages or injunctive relief (e.g., stopping ongoing infringement) are required.
The Copyright Claims Board represents a vital step forward for creators and small businesses, empowering them to defend their work without the prohibitive costs of federal litigation. By understanding the system’s strengths and limitations, creators can effectively use the CCB to enforce their rights and ensure their intellectual property remains protected.
4. The Unitary Patent System in Europe
Overview of the Unitary Patent System and Its Impact on European Businesses
The Unitary Patent System, introduced in 2023, simplifies the process of securing patent protection in Europe. With a single application, innovators can cover up to 25 EU member states, streamlining administration and reducing costs significantly.⁸
This centralized approach, combined with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), creates a more consistent and efficient enforcement system, ensuring quicker dispute resolution and reducing jurisdictional conflicts.
Benefits of Centralized Patent Protection for Innovators
Key advantages include:
Cost Reduction: Businesses save on application, translation, and renewal fees by consolidating filings into one system.
Efficient Enforcement: The UPC provides a single forum for resolving disputes, enhancing predictability and consistency.
Broader Market Access: Automatic coverage in participating EU states allows businesses to expand without additional IP hurdles.⁹
Key Considerations for U.S. Businesses Operating in Europe
U.S. companies must adapt their strategies to align with the system’s requirements. While the Unitary Patent System offers broad coverage, it does not extend to non-participating states like Spain. Separate filings remain necessary for these countries. Additionally, translation requirements for initial applications may add complexity.¹⁰
Global Implications: How This Development Benefits International Innovators and Patent Holders
For international innovators, the system harmonizes patent protections, making Europe more attractive for investment. A U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, for example, can protect its innovations across the EU with a single application, significantly reducing the administrative burden. Similarly, tech startups can leverage the system to enter multiple markets simultaneously, strengthening their global IP portfolios.¹¹
Actionable Tips: Adjusting Patent Strategies for Businesses Operating In or Targeting Europe
Audit Your Portfolio: Identify which patents can benefit from transitioning to the Unitary Patent System.
Plan for Opt-Outs: Businesses may choose to opt out of the UPC for certain patents to maintain national jurisdiction.
Engage Experts: Work with European IP attorneys to navigate procedural requirements and maximize system benefits.
5. 2025 USPTO Trademark Fee Changes
Overview of Changes
Effective January 18, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will implement significant updates to its trademark fee structure. This revised structure introduces a unified base application fee and new surcharges designed to streamline the application process and incentivize complete and accurate submissions. These changes present both challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurs, startups, and established businesses seeking to protect their trademarks in a cost-effective manner.
Key Changes to Fees
Base Application Fee:
The previous two-tier fee system, comprising TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard, is replaced by a single base application fee of $350 per class. This aims to simplify the filing process and align fees with the actual cost of services provided. 12
New Surcharges:
Several surcharges have been introduced to promote accurate and thorough submissions:
Insufficient Information Fee: A $100 per class surcharge applies to applications lacking required information at the time of filing. 13
Custom Description Fee: An additional $200 per class is charged for using a free-form text box instead of selecting descriptions from the USPTO’s pre-approved list. 14
Lengthy Description Fee: A $100 fee is levied for descriptions exceeding 1,000 characters, with an additional $100 for every 1,000 characters beyond that. 14
Implications for Businesses
For startups, entrepreneurs, and businesses launching new brands, these changes underscore the importance of preparing precise and compliant trademark applications. Leveraging the expertise of intellectual property professionals can mitigate additional costs and potential delays caused by incomplete submissions. For example, businesses should:
Conduct thorough pre-filing research to ensure comprehensive and accurate descriptions.
Consider the character count and specificity of their goods and services listings to avoid surcharges.
Use pre-approved descriptions where possible to reduce the risk of incurring additional fees.
Why These Changes Matter
These fee adjustments aim to improve the efficiency and accuracy of trademark processing at the USPTO. By encouraging applicants to provide complete and detailed submissions, the changes also enhance the overall quality and reliability of the U.S. trademark registry. However, for many small businesses and startups operating on tight budgets, the new structure may necessitate additional planning to navigate the filing process cost-effectively.
Preparation Tips
Review the Changes: Familiarize yourself with the new fee structure before filing to anticipate any additional costs.
Optimize Descriptions: Use the USPTO’s pre-approved list of goods and services where applicable to save costs.
Seek Professional Guidance: Partner with trademark attorneys or consultants to ensure compliance and minimize errors that could result in extra fees.
File Early: Consider filing applications before January 18, 2025, to benefit from the current fee structure if applicable.
Conclusion for Intellectual Property Trends to Watch in 2025 Blog
As 2025 unfolds, the intersection of technology, creativity, and the law continues to redefine intellectual property landscapes globally. Staying informed about these transformative trends is no longer optional—it’s a necessity for innovators, businesses, and legal professionals alike.
The empowerment of college athletes under NIL laws, the challenges and opportunities of generative AI, the accessibility of copyright claims through small claims courts, the streamlined protections of the Unitary Patent System, and the USPTO's revamped trademark fee structure are all emblematic of an era where adaptability and foresight are paramount. Each development underscores a broader narrative: intellectual property is not merely a legal construct but a dynamic framework that shapes industries, cultures, and economies.
For creators and businesses, the key takeaway is clear: the tools to protect and leverage your intellectual assets are evolving. Embrace these changes proactively by partnering with legal professionals, staying educated, and tailoring strategies to align with the shifting legal and technological landscapes.
By seizing these opportunities, you can turn potential challenges into platforms for growth, ensuring your place at the forefront of innovation and success in the years to come.
About the Author
Alexander Karana, Esq. is a first-generation Chaldean-Assyrian American attorney based in Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. Known for his innovative approach to intellectual property law, Alex specializes in prosecuting patents and trademarks for a wide range of clients, from startups and small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. With expertise spanning industries such as engineering, technology, entertainment, music, and sports, Alex is a trusted advisor for clients navigating the complexities of today’s IP landscape.
Combining his legal acumen with a technical background in chemical engineering, Alex brings a unique perspective to solving intricate intellectual property challenges. Whether counseling creators, entrepreneurs, or multinational corporations, Alex is dedicated to protecting innovation and empowering his clients to thrive in competitive markets.
Education:
J.D., University of Illinois Chicago (formerly The John Marshall Law School), 2020
B.S., Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University, 2013
Awards and Recognitions:
Super Lawyers: Illinois Rising Star (2024-2025)
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America (2024-2025) in Entertainment and Sports Law, Intellectual Property, and Patent Law
Contact:
Email: alexander.karana@vonbriesen.com / me@alexkarana.com
Website: alexkarana.com
Phone: 331-399-1840
Legal Disclaimer
This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified attorney. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated organizations.
For personalized legal counsel or to learn more about protecting your intellectual property, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Endnotes
National Collegiate Athletic Association. "NIL Legislation Updates." Accessed January 2025.
IP Watchdog. "NIL Laws and Trademark Implications." Accessed January 2025.
U.S. Copyright Office. "Copyright and AI Systems: Clarifications." 2023.
OpenAI. "Generative AI Transforming Creativity." 2024.
Getty Images v. Stability AI. 2024.
Copyright Claims Board. "Small Claims Overview." 2025.
European Patent Office. "Understanding the Unified Patent Court." 2024.
European Patent Office. "The Unitary Patent System: Overview and Guidelines." Accessed January 2025.
IP Watchdog. "Understanding the Unified Patent Court’s Role." Accessed January 2025.
European Commission. "How the Unitary Patent System Will Reduce Costs." Accessed January 2025.
European Patent Office. "Unified Patent Court and Global Impact." Accessed January 2025.
USPTO. "Summary of 2025 Trademark Fee Changes." United States Patent and Trademark Office. Accessed January 2025.
USPTO. "Navigating the 2025 USPTO Trademark Changes." Alt Legal Blog. Accessed January 2025.
Alt Legal. "Making Dollars and Sense of the USPTO’s New Trademark Application Fees." Accessed January 2025.