“Can an application model that eliminates patent filing fees for gifted inventors under 18 be launched in the United States? Absolutely.”
There are lots of familiar recommendations to make U.S. businesses more competitive globally. The usual suspects include:
- Invest in infrastructure and workforce training.
- Simplify taxes for business.
- Produce high-value goods.
- Stream regulations and energize R&D.
All are valid, but none are particularly creative or original.
One solution that hasn’t been pursued is not only simple, a variation of it has been implemented by America’s largest and most aggressive economic competitor: remove the filing fees for inventors and intellectual property (IP)creators under 18.
For those who doubt the value of this proposition or scoff at its viability, consider the newsworthy achievements of these young thinkers:
- At 11 years old, Mikaila Ulmer built her lemonade stand in Austin, TX, into Me & The Bees, a popular nationally distributed beverage brand.
- 7-year-old Alina Morse developed sugar-free lollipops (Zollipops) after a dentist’s comment, growing them into a multimillion-dollar business.
- Gabby Goodwin invented GaBBY Bows, a line of innovative hair bows, becoming a successful CEO by her teens.
On the technology side, these teen-led firms – featured recently in the Wall Street Journal – are undeniable eyebrow raisers:
- 15-year-old Nick Dobroshinsky has launched BeyondSPX, an AI-based financial research platform.
- Raghav Arora, who was accepted into Y Combinator as a 16-year-old, founded GetASAP, a startup that uses AI to forecast inventory for grocers and distribute produce.
To nurture the pursuits of young inventors, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) (the country’s equivalent of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)) offers reductions or exemptions in filing fees for those under 18. While adult patent agents with full civil capacity must handle the application process, CNIPA’s recognition of young IP innovators reflects an understanding of the unique capabilities and talents that far-sighted minors possess. This appreciation is demonstrated by the country’s willingness to remove financial barriers to patent applications for ambitious young creators, designers, and inventors.
Can an application model that eliminates patent filing fees for gifted inventors under 18 be launched in the United States? Absolutely. Here’s an implementation roadmap:
- The USPTO would create instructional collateral that would be made available to high school inventor and IP clubs. These extracurricular, after-school groups would be taught the essentials of the registration process by a faculty member, who’d receive appropriate training materials to lead the club. Instruction could include case studies of the development process of noteworthy inventions, discoveries, and innovations; Q&As about the USPTO application for under 18 inventors; lectures by and discussions with local entrepreneurs who’ve had success as inventors; and an overview of the venture capital investment steps that are involved with developing startups into thriving companies.
- To identify the most promising ideas within high school inventor clubs, members would be coached by the clubs’ leaders on how to create pitch presentations that best capture the distinctiveness and benefits their proposals can deliver. These pitches would be made to a panel of successful local entrepreneurs, who would provide feedback, encouragement, and critiques of the students’ work (similar to the pitch competitions of startup accelerators and angel investor groups). Students who offer the most promising explanations and demonstrations of their visions would receive official USPTO award certificates, and the high school would arrange local media coverage to honor the selected students’ achievements.
- The teens whose ideas are recognized in their high school inventor clubs would be eligible for help filing their patent applications from the Patent Pro Bono Program and the Law School Clinic Certification Program, both of which offer free USPTO-approved legal guidance.
- On the state level, a bold initiative could be possible: if a teen inventor/IP entrepreneur patents something while in high school and remains a resident of the state, they would pay no state business or personal tax on income that’s generated from the profitable development of that intellectual property for the subsequent 50 years, which would cover the length of their professional career.
To support the next generation of risk takers and inspired ideators, we must nurture American exceptionalism – especially among youngsters who haven’t entered college. With that goal in mind, overlooking the many competitive advantages that cost-free USPTO filing for vetted under 18 inventors can bring is short-sighted and uninformed.
The initiative would guide and educate aspiring young business futurists from all income backgrounds nationwide.
It could invigorate promising ideas that could drive job creation, economic development, and community revitalization.
It would foster innovation among motivated teens and give America an edge over Chinese efforts in this area.
Politicians, industry thought leaders, and executives, take note: this audacious proposal has a long tail. It can yield big wins for the inventors, their communities, and prospective buyers of their pioneering output.
In the words of Tony Stark, a child prodigy who built his first circuit board at age 6, graduated from MIT at 17, and went on to devise some pretty impressive world-changing gadgetry, let’s make it fast, easy, and free for inquisitive American youngsters to demonstrate how “the future is now”.
Join the Discussion
8 comments so far. Add my comment.
Anon
January 18, 2026 05:39 pmInteresting post by Greg, who – as usual – hits some and misses some (badly).
He continues to miss due to his in house counsel role, and seems to still want to blame practitioners for the actions of the Office vis a vis 101 and 103 rejections.
What he is correct on here is that this ‘gesture’ is nothing practical, given that actual costs just are not driven by filing fees (funny thing on that though is that he does not ‘remember’ my own counter point to him vis a vis the Oil States case and the repercussions that should follow if a patent grant is considered the type of personal property of a “public franchise” – due expressly to my push back on FranchisEE and FranchisOR obligations. Notably on that point, the FranchisOR typically warrants such thing as quality of the item, and perhaps ongoing operational support (read that as helping police and enforce the property), and the like.
Clearly, Oil States was badly decided, but what has been worse is that the “Patent Profanity” laid out in that case has not been brought home to roost.
Also, there are well-established reasons and treatments between copyrights and patents that distinguish how the to are treated. Greg does no one any favors by omitting that portion of ‘the deal.’ Personally, I would settle for merely adding a criminal element possibility to infringement (and definitely move such far, far away from the ‘mere money’ aspect that Efficient Infringers prefer to have.
As for any ‘ratio of fees,” meh – I would always prefer not having cost factors be such a driver and even if ‘the big boys’ want to provide plenty of patent applications, that still does not hamper the reason why we have a patent system.
Joe Williams
January 17, 2026 02:39 pmI mean, let’s also ask for funding back for inventors ruined by SCOTUS. This is a nonstarter and just a post to spark conversation here.
Mark Summerfield
January 17, 2026 05:51 am“…Tony Stark, a child prodigy who built his first circuit board at age 6, graduated from MIT at 17, and went on to devise some pretty impressive world-changing gadgetry…”
And is completely fictional.
“Child inventors” make for great copy, but they’re a negligible component of the overall innovation ecosystem, and they don’t build economies. As others have rightly pointed out, resources would be better spent on fixing the system than on meaningless PR stunts.
Anon
January 16, 2026 03:07 pmCS – sadly, I concur.
Like other ‘equity virtue signaling’ items, this type of promotion is necessarily secondary and should only be pursued after strong protection has been regained (for everybody).
Greg Aharonian
January 16, 2026 01:45 pmFiling patents for free (presumably waiving the application fees) is a meaningless economic gesture, another way to avoid serious patent (statute) reform.
The application fees pale in comparison to the cost to have a good patent application prepared, and the huge costs of Office Actions to fight the usual 102/103/112 rejections.
Reasonable estimates of the total cost to obtain a patent are in the range of $40,000. A few thousands dollars for application fees is noise in the patent budget process.
Offering “free legal guidance from the USPTO”? Fine. But for everyone, starting with “How can we write our own claims that satisfy 101 and 103, since most of our lawyers don’t seem able to do this – while charging us most of the $40,000 patenting cost?”
Not paying state/local taxes for the next 50 years from income on their invention? Economically not useful for a variety of reasons.
First, and learn this from drug companies (and their problems with generics at patent expiration), once a patent expires at 20 years, income streams mostly dry up. Second, look at early patent expirations. Most patents are abandoned before 10 years of their terms are up (Europe, with annual renewals, has the best data). Who cares about 40 more years of tax breaks after that for paltry income streams?
Second, one of the many lies on which copyright law is based on (beyond 17 USC 102 utter vagueness) is the disparity between copyright term and patent term. Patent term is basically 20 years from filing. Copyright term is life of the author plus the half-life of proton decay (10^32 years). Why? The sole reason is that copyrighters need lots of time to profit from their works. But then, so do most inventors (except for the big companies). There is no reason why small/independent/teenager inventors cannot get lifetime protection for their works, if the same type of people are getting that protection for their copyrighted works (both of which – artistic works and inventions – are increasingly the 103 obvious and 17 USC non-human output of an AI program and thus not protectable).
The injustice with patent application fees is in the ratios of fees. Take the basic filing fee. A micro-entity pays $70 – reasonable. A small-entity pays $140 – reasonable. Apple Corporation, worth $1 trillion, pays $350. One reason why large corporations can clog PTO pipelines with patent applications.
You could make filing fees for teenagers, micro-entities and small-entities $0 – nothing – but charging large corporations $700 filing fees. Wouldn’t affect them, though to be honest, wouldn’t affect anyone else.
Pro Say
January 16, 2026 11:45 amHow can minors make the statements and representations necessary for applying for, prosecuting, and obtaining patents?
Is it legally acceptable for their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to sign for them?
John Paul Archuleta
January 16, 2026 06:57 amDefinitely won’t work for Life time science achievements, which takes experience of providing a concept and resolving it to theory that can be commercialized and novel.
CS
January 15, 2026 07:21 pmGifted upfront costs for minors like China’s CNIPA exemptions? Until the US patent system is fixed (PERA at least to clarify eligibility, RESTORE for real injunction teeth, finalizing PTAB reforms to end the invalidation roulette), that gift doesn’t preclude unpredictable support and great legal costs, it invites them. Might as well gift them some cocaine or a ticket to a rigged lottery.
Add Comment