Skip to content
Log in Join free
IPWatchdog Unleashed cover art

Gene Quinn

IPWatchdog Unleashed

A News Commentary and News podcast

#141 in News Commentary · 🇰🇷
Good podcast? Give it some love!

About the show

Each week we journey into the world of intellectual property to discuss the law, news, policy and politics of innovation, technology, and creativity.  With analysis and commentary from industry thought leaders and newsmakers from around the world, IPWatchdog Unleashed is hosted by world renowned patent attorney and founder of IPWatchdog.com, Gene Quinn.

Newest episodes

Judge Newman’s Challenge: Don’t Just Navigate Patent Law—Change It

11 min

Send us Fan Mail Uncertainty in patent rights undermines the investment needed to turn scientific breakthroughs into commercial products—but accepting that uncertainty is a choice. In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Judge Pauline Newman draws on her experience in industry and the policy discussions that helped shape the Federal Circuit to connect today’s life sciences challenges with the conditions that drove an earlier era of patent reform. She explains why predictable, reliable patent protection matters to research investment, commercialization, and the ability to recover the costs of failed research as well as successful discoveries. Her message to IP counsel, industry leaders, and policymakers is direct: addressing the weaknesses of the patent system requires looking beyond how to navigate existing law and engaging in the work of changing it. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Art of Patent Litigation: How to Make Your Case Compelling

1 hr 4 min

Send us Fan Mail Effective patent litigation requires more than command of the law and technology. It demands an advocacy strategy tailored to the audience, the forum, and the business stakes. Recorded at IPWatchdog’s recent Women’s Forum, this conversation is moderated by Katie O’Sullivan, Senior Counsel and U.S. Litigation Lead at Renesas Electronics. The discussion explores how experienced litigators adapt their approach for judges, juries, and arbitrators—and why understanding a decision maker’s expectations can be as consequential as mastering the merits. The panel examines how to translate complex technologies into clear, persuasive presentations without sacrificing accuracy. From working with engineers and selecting experts who can teach to testing demonstratives and stress-testing analogies, the speakers offer practical approaches to making technical arguments accessible and memorable. They also discuss how litigation teams can test their presentations when budgets do not accommodate mock trials or jury consultants, and why a newcomer’s questions can expose weaknesses that subject matter experts overlook. The conversation brings these lessons together around case themes: developing them early, refining them as discovery unfolds, and integrating them into claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial. O’Sullivan adds an important in-house perspective: a credible trial strategy can strengthen settlement leverage long before a jury is seated. For outside counsel and corporate IP leaders alike, the discussion offers practical insight into aligning technical proof, legal arguments, and persuasive storytelling throughout a patent dispute. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Is AI Use Putting Intellectual Property at Risk?

55 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, generative AI’s accelerating adoption raises a critical question: can organizations move quickly without compromising their intellectual property? Recorded at IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, this panel opens with introductions from Gene Quinn before Stephanie Curcio leads a discussion with Marlene Valderramma, Kendra Ervin and Rinat Shangeeta about how AI is changing enterprise risk—and what IP leaders should do now. The panel examines AI-generated invention disclosures, the importance of identifying human contributions, and the confidentiality risks created by unauthorized “shadow AI” and increasingly autonomous tools. Practical takeaways include mapping AI use across existing workflows, limiting access to sensitive information, maintaining meaningful human review, and scrutinizing vendor terms governing training rights, output ownership and infringement indemnification. As pressure to adopt AI intensifies, the conversation highlights the consequences of deploying tools before legal and IP teams can assess the risks. For counsel and business leaders, the challenge is to build governance that keeps pace with adoption, preserves human expertise, and brings IP into decisions before valuable rights or confidential information are put at risk. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Similar podcasts

All episodes

Judge Newman’s Challenge: Don’t Just Navigate Patent Law—Change It

11 min

Send us Fan Mail Uncertainty in patent rights undermines the investment needed to turn scientific breakthroughs into commercial products—but accepting that uncertainty is a choice. In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Judge Pauline Newman draws on her experience in industry and the policy discussions that helped shape the Federal Circuit to connect today’s life sciences challenges with the conditions that drove an earlier era of patent reform. She explains why predictable, reliable patent protection matters to research investment, commercialization, and the ability to recover the costs of failed research as well as successful discoveries. Her message to IP counsel, industry leaders, and policymakers is direct: addressing the weaknesses of the patent system requires looking beyond how to navigate existing law and engaging in the work of changing it. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Art of Patent Litigation: How to Make Your Case Compelling

1 hr 4 min

Send us Fan Mail Effective patent litigation requires more than command of the law and technology. It demands an advocacy strategy tailored to the audience, the forum, and the business stakes. Recorded at IPWatchdog’s recent Women’s Forum, this conversation is moderated by Katie O’Sullivan, Senior Counsel and U.S. Litigation Lead at Renesas Electronics. The discussion explores how experienced litigators adapt their approach for judges, juries, and arbitrators—and why understanding a decision maker’s expectations can be as consequential as mastering the merits. The panel examines how to translate complex technologies into clear, persuasive presentations without sacrificing accuracy. From working with engineers and selecting experts who can teach to testing demonstratives and stress-testing analogies, the speakers offer practical approaches to making technical arguments accessible and memorable. They also discuss how litigation teams can test their presentations when budgets do not accommodate mock trials or jury consultants, and why a newcomer’s questions can expose weaknesses that subject matter experts overlook. The conversation brings these lessons together around case themes: developing them early, refining them as discovery unfolds, and integrating them into claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial. O’Sullivan adds an important in-house perspective: a credible trial strategy can strengthen settlement leverage long before a jury is seated. For outside counsel and corporate IP leaders alike, the discussion offers practical insight into aligning technical proof, legal arguments, and persuasive storytelling throughout a patent dispute. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Is AI Use Putting Intellectual Property at Risk?

55 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, generative AI’s accelerating adoption raises a critical question: can organizations move quickly without compromising their intellectual property? Recorded at IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, this panel opens with introductions from Gene Quinn before Stephanie Curcio leads a discussion with Marlene Valderramma, Kendra Ervin and Rinat Shangeeta about how AI is changing enterprise risk—and what IP leaders should do now. The panel examines AI-generated invention disclosures, the importance of identifying human contributions, and the confidentiality risks created by unauthorized “shadow AI” and increasingly autonomous tools. Practical takeaways include mapping AI use across existing workflows, limiting access to sensitive information, maintaining meaningful human review, and scrutinizing vendor terms governing training rights, output ownership and infringement indemnification. As pressure to adopt AI intensifies, the conversation highlights the consequences of deploying tools before legal and IP teams can assess the risks. For counsel and business leaders, the challenge is to build governance that keeps pace with adoption, preserves human expertise, and brings IP into decisions before valuable rights or confidential information are put at risk. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

USPTO 101: The Risks of Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations

58 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with John Rogitz and Clint Mehall. The conversation examines subject matter eligibility declarations, or SMEDs, and whether this prosecution tool offers a meaningful path past Section 101 rejections—or creates a record that could undermine the patent owner during litigation. The discussion weighs the potential benefits of explaining an invention’s technical improvement against the risks of damaging admissions and questions about support in the original disclosure. Drawing on prosecution experience and patent analytics, Rogitz and Mehall explore when a declaration may be justified, what makes supporting evidence persuasive, and why examiner interviews and appeals deserve consideration before adding sworn statements to the record. They distinguish detailed technical reasoning and comparative evidence from conclusory assertions, while questioning how consistently examiners evaluate that evidence. The discussion also addresses the tension between USPTO eligibility guidance and its implementation across examiners and art units. For in-house counsel and patent practitioners, the central issue is securing commercially meaningful protection without creating avoidable vulnerabilities. The conversation connects stronger application drafting, thoughtful prosecution strategy, and realistic budgets to that objective. It also examines how pressure to minimize prosecution costs can lead to repeated claim narrowing, leaving patent owners paying for rights that no longer cover the products and services they intended to protect. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

What Are Patents Really Worth? The Economics of Licensing and Enforcement

59 min

Send us Fan Mail What is a patent really worth—and how much of that value can its owner actually capture? This episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed features a panel of litigators and economists from IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum examining the economics of patent licensing from both sides of the negotiating table. The discussion explores how licensing can generate revenue, protect customer relationships, create competitive advantages, and support cross-licensing strategies, with the right approach depending on each party’s commercial objectives. The panel distinguishes the underlying economic value of an invention from the amount parties will accept or pay to resolve a dispute. Litigation costs, financial pressures, and invalidation risks—including Section 101 challenges and post-grant proceedings—can materially change negotiating leverage without changing the technology itself. The conversation also examines what makes a license truly comparable, why apportionment matters, and how agreements covering patents, trade secrets, and know-how can influence subsequent valuation and damages analyses. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

From Patent Bar to Patent Litigator: Carving Your Own Path in IP

43 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Nancy Braman. The conversation focuses on Nancy’s journey through intellectual property returns. From taking PLI patent bar review course before law school, to attending Franklin Pierce Law School, to spending more than three years writing and researching for IPWatchdog and now litigating high-stakes patent and intellectual property disputes for life sciences and technology companies.  Recorded before a live audience at IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, the conversation explores what it takes to build a career in patent law—and what conventional measures of achievement can miss. From commercial fishing in Alaska to patent prosecution and litigation, Braman’s experience illustrates how resilience, deliberate follow-through, and meaningful professional relationships create opportunities. Quinn and Braman discuss the practical realities of developing talent in a demanding profession, including increasingly early law firm recruiting and the pressure on students to make career decisions before receiving their first-semester grades. They offer concrete guidance on approaching mentors, making professional outreach personal, and communicating the value of an unconventional background. For aspiring practitioners and those responsible for hiring and mentoring them, the discussion examines how potential is recognized and cultivated. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Business Development Starts With Listening

1 hr 0 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Fran Cruz and Marlene Valderrama. Recorded before a live audience following IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, the conversation brings together perspectives from Juristat and Halliburton to explore how authentic relationships drive business development, career advancement, and more effective IP operations. The discussion examines what earns the attention of overstretched in-house teams: understanding their business, identifying specific challenges, and offering insights that make their jobs easier. From patent portfolio reviews to maintenance-fee decisions, the guests explain how careful listening and tailored outreach create opportunities to deliver value. As AI fuels a growing volume of generic messages, preparation, relevance, and follow-through become critical differentiators. Gene, Fran, and Marlene also explore the distinction between mentorship and active sponsorship, the importance of referrals, and why networking matters even for professionals who are not seeking clients. For IP practitioners and leaders, the conversation offers practical guidance on building trusted relationships, exchanging useful insights, and translating professional engagement into lasting business and career opportunities. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Fight to Fix America's Patent System: From the USPTO to Capitol Hill

46 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, IPWatchdog President Renee C. Quinn, speaks with Coke Morgan Stewart about her time leading the USPTO and her new role as president and CEO of the Council for Innovation Promotion. Stewart describes the operational pressures she encountered at the agency, from the patent application backlog and hiring freeze to the challenge of leading a largely remote workforce through rapid change. The conversation turns to the uncertainty facing patent owners: eligibility questions, limited confidence in remedies, and repeated validity challenges, including proceedings before the PTAB. Stewart explains why strong examination and agency action matter, but argues that lasting improvements to patent rights require Congress to act. Recorded at IPWatchdog’s annual Women’s IP Forum, the discussion also explores leadership under pressure, career transitions, and the difference between mentoring and sponsorship. Stewart offers practical advice on building relationships with people who can champion your career—and on asking them for help with a specific purpose. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

From Discovery to Patients: The Role of the Patent System in Life Sciences Innovation

1 hr 1 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Steve Caltrider. Caltrider, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and former General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly, brings perspectives from nonprofit research and pharmaceutical practice to a central question: how does IP help move discoveries from the laboratory to patients? The conversation examines the role of patent protection in supporting investment in life sciences innovation and distinguishes innovation incentives from challenges such as generic drug supply and market concentration. Caltrider argues that confidence in patent rights depends on improving patent quality at the examination stage. He and Quinn discuss uncertainty around § 101 eligibility for diagnostics and emerging therapies, the effect of PTAB review on investment, and the need to balance error correction with a system that allows innovation to proceed. They also consider how hindsight can distort obviousness analysis and why practitioners should act as stewards of the patent system. The discussion turns to AI’s potential to improve prior-art searches and give applicants earlier feedback, helping examiners focus on the key issues while preserving human judgment in patentability decisions. Caltrider also explores how simplifying patent law and reducing defensive prosecution practices could enable more candid engagement with examiners. For IP professionals, the conversation offers a practical look at how stronger examination and clearer rules could support more reliable patents and sustained investment. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The AI Data Center Boom: Where Power, Patents and Infrastructure Collide

51 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Hilary Preston. A partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of the firm’s intellectual property and technology litigation practice, Preston discusses the rapidly expanding AI data center ecosystem and the complex technology, infrastructure, and legal risks emerging alongside it. The conversation examines how power availability, grid capacity, cooling systems, on-site generation, and geographic location are shaping data center development. Quinn and Preston explore why these issues are becoming potential patent battlegrounds, how rights holders may target operators rather than technology suppliers, and why both hyperscaler and smaller, purpose-built facilities must account for IP risk across interconnected systems and vendors. Preston also explains the importance of “innovation governance” in projects moving at unprecedented speed. The discussion addresses strategic choices between patent and trade secret protection, jointly developed technology, ownership rights, indemnification, public disclosures, and the need to identify and manage risk before construction begins. The episode also considers the emerging challenges surrounding AI-related patents, including patent eligibility under Section 101 and written description and enablement under Section 112, offering practical guidance for developers, investors, technology providers, and legal professionals navigating this rapidly evolving market. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Video Game AI Conundrum: Can Lawmakers Regulate AI Without Stifling Innovation?

47 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Bijou Mgbojikwe, who is Senior Policy Counsel at the Entertainment Software Association. They discuss how artificial intelligence is reshaping the video game industry and creating new challenges at the intersection of copyright, the First Amendment, right of publicity, content moderation, and consumer protection. The conversation examines why policymakers must distinguish between harmful deepfakes and digital replicas used in legitimate creative works. Mgbojikwe explains how the rapid expansion of state-level AI legislation is producing a costly and increasingly unworkable regulatory patchwork. Broad disclosure, labeling, watermarking, and content-provenance requirements can create disclosure fatigue, disrupt gameplay and immersion, and inadvertently sweep in benign technologies that have been used in video games for decades. The discussion emphasizes the value of risk-based regulation, targeted legislative language, and industry self-regulation—particularly when addressing online safety and protecting children. The episode also considers the long-term consequences for innovation, smaller game developers, and the national digital economy. Quinn and Mgbojikwe discuss the growing need for federal coordination, the dangers of imposing content-based or product-liability theories on software, and the importance of relying on existing legal doctrines where they already address emerging AI issues. For IP professionals, the conversation offers a practical framework for evaluating AI legislation: support legitimate consumer protections while preserving the creative freedom and technological experimentation that drive the video game industry forward. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The AI Patent Gold Rush: Volume, Value and Patent Strategy

54 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Robert Plotkin. A patent attorney, computer scientist, and longtime software and AI practitioner, Plotkin discusses the relationship between hardware and software innovation and why legal distinctions that ignore how technology actually operates can produce flawed patent analysis. Quinn and Plotkin examine the continuing challenges surrounding patent eligibility, including the tendency to use Section 101 as a shortcut for questions that more appropriately belong under enablement, written description, novelty, or non-obviousness. They also discuss the risks of treating software as inherently simple or predictable, and the importance of evaluating AI and software inventions on their technological facts rather than through rigid labels that ignore deliberate design choices. The conversation also addresses the emerging AI patent gold rush and the difference between patent volume and patent value. Plotkin explains why companies should identify the specific technological capability they had to develop, determine whether it provides a meaningful competitive advantage, and align prosecution strategy with the business objective—whether product protection, fundraising, acquisition, monetization, or licensing. For startups and established companies alike, the discussion offers a practical framework for deciding what to patent, what may be better protected as a trade secret, and when an invention is sufficiently developed to justify pursuing patent protection. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Will AI Replace Patent Lawyers? Why Experience and Judgment Still Matter

28 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn examines why artificial intelligence is unlikely to eliminate experienced patent lawyers—but will expose practitioners whose work consists primarily of commodity production. AI is already transforming prior-art searching, claim comparison, application drafting, office-action responses, and portfolio analysis. The strategic opportunity is not simply to produce more patents faster, but to use AI to reach a substantially better work product within the time and budget previously required to reach what courts today increasingly find to be incomplete. Quinn discusses the limits of AI-assisted patent practice, including technically impossible embodiments, unsupported combinations, inaccurate characterizations of prior art, and plausible language that collapses under technical scrutiny. AI remains a tool, not an inventor, and the use of AI cannot relieve patent professionals of responsibility for determining what is true, what works, what the inventor actually conceived, and what the law permits them to claim. For patent owners and in-house counsel, the episode offers a direct warning against treating AI as merely a justification for reducing outside-counsel fees while continuing to demand commercially useful rights that can survive scrutiny and diligence in the real world. The episode also addresses a workforce issue that is rarely discussed: if AI performs much of the entry-level work traditionally used to train junior lawyers, patent agents, and searchers, how will the next generation develop professional judgment? Quinn offers a practical roadmap that includes mastering patent-law fundamentals, using AI as a tutor and adversarial reviewer, becoming skilled at inventor interviews, developing technical depth, and studying how patents fail. He also argues for deliberate collaboration between younger professionals who bring AI fluency and experienced practitioners who contribute legal judgment, technical skeptic...

Patent Counts vs. Patent Value: Patent Strategy in the AI Age

51 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Joel Meyer. An IP attorney and innovation strategist with more than 30 years of experience building and monetizing technology portfolios, Meyer joins Gene to examine how the AI transformation is reshaping innovation and IP strategy. Drawing on his experience with digital watermarking and other advanced technologies, they explore software and functional claiming, the persistent challenges surrounding patent eligibility, and why many concerns labeled as “abstractness” may be better addressed through Section 112—and, in some cases, Section 103. The conversation then turns to the strategic choices facing startups and growth companies, including when to patent, when to rely on trade secrets, and why simply accumulating patent numbers is rarely the right objective. Meyer and Quinn discuss the importance of building foundational patent specifications that preserve optionality, support protection at multiple levels of generality, and anticipate competitive technologies, alternative implementations and future market developments. They also examine AI-assisted patent drafting and searching, including why an AI-generated application that looks polished may still be little more than a product specification without the strategic architecture necessary to create durable IP value. Finally, Gene and Joel explore the evolving role of IP counsel as a strategic business partner rather than merely a producer of patents. For emerging companies in particular, effective IP strategy requires understanding the technology, competitive landscape, business model and investor expectations—and identifying the protectable advantages that can become meaningful barriers to entry. The takeaway is a forward-looking discussion about using patents, trade secrets and AI tools together to create value, anticipate disruption and preserve strategic options as technologies and markets evolve....

Patent Monetization Economics: What It Costs to Turn Patents into Revenue

36 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, Brad Close, Phil Goter, Kyle Vallecillo, and Matheus Ramalho discuss enforcement driven economics. Continuing the podcast’s examination of patent monetization, the conversation moves beyond portfolio diligence to the far more difficult question of execution: what patent owners must understand once they are prepared to pursue licensing or enforcement, and why capital, timing, and deal structure often determine whether valuable patent rights produce a commercial return. The panel examines how non-recourse litigation financing and alternative fee arrangements distribute cost, risk, and potential recovery among patent owners, law firms, and funders. The discussion also explores patent pools, special-purpose vehicles, cross-licensing, and supply relationships, as well as the reputational and strategic considerations that influence whether a company asserts patents in its own name. Throughout, the participants emphasize that litigation is frequently a means of creating negotiating leverage—but that the desired business resolution must remain compatible with the economics of the enforcement campaign. The conversation also highlights Brazil’s increasingly important role in global monetization strategies, including preliminary injunctions, disgorgement-based damages, and other pressure points that may be unavailable in the United States. The panel closes with practical guidance for building monetization-ready portfolios: draft claims with provable infringement in mind, avoid unnecessarily costly limitations, preserve multiple independent patent families, and recognize that one newly issued patent rarely provides sufficient leverage. The result is a candid assessment of what it now takes to move from owning patents to extracting meaningful value from them. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Future of IP: How Today's Choices Shape Tomorrow

54 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Martin Correa. Correa, whose work at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) focuses on the future of intellectual property. The conversation examines the danger of viewing IP solely as a legal instrument or barrier, rather than as infrastructure supporting investment, innovation, economic development, and public welfare. Correa and Quinn discuss how IP leaders can identify high-impact uncertainties, test strategy against multiple plausible futures, and remain prepared as technology, economics, law, and public attitudes evolve. Correa then puts Quinn through WIPO’s seven-question foresight exercise, shifting the discussion to the IP system of 2040. Their exchange addresses the durability of the U.S. patent system, declining respect for property rights, the cost and fragmentation of global patent protection, international harmonization, and the risk that innovators will increasingly rely on trade secrets. The result is a timely examination of how public education, policymaker engagement, and decisions made today will determine whether IP continues to drive innovation tomorrow. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Patent Damages on Trial: Rule 702 and the Daubert Conundrum

52 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we have a special episode moderated by Megan Carpenter, which took place during the IPWatchdog Patent Masters conference last month.  IPWatchdog founder, Gene Quinn, joins along with economist Jon Putnam, and patent litigators Glenn Forbis, and Mark Nelson. The crew examines how the 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702—and the Federal Circuit’s increasingly rigorous review of expert testimony—are changing the way patent damages must be developed, defended, and challenged. The conversation explores why heightened scrutiny does not necessarily favor defendants, how the line between admissibility and weight remains highly judge-dependent, and what recent disputes reveal about apportionment, license comparability, causation, and the limits of scientific proof in the damages context. The panel also revisits the demise of the 25-percent rule and considers the tension between demanding economic rigor and recognizing that a reasonable royalty for a showing of infringement logically cannot begin at zero. The practical takeaway is clear: damages strategy cannot wait until expert reports are due. Patent owners and accused infringers alike need to engage damages experts early, pursue discovery in deliberate waves, connect technical value to economic outcomes, and build alternative theories capable of surviving Daubert scrutiny. The discussion offers a sophisticated roadmap for integrating liability, discovery, economics, and trial strategy from the beginning of the case. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Patent to Product: What Inventors Must Prove Before They Invest

48 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Ben Greenberg. An engineer and product-development specialist, Greenberg works with independent inventors, startups, and small businesses to transform early-stage concepts into functional prototypes, manufacturable products, and commercially viable opportunities. The conversation examines why obtaining a patent is only one component of a successful strategy—and why technical feasibility, market demand, and economic reality must be evaluated together. Quinn and Greenberg explore the critical sequencing of patent protection, prototyping, testing, and market validation. They discuss the value of small-batch manufacturing, proof of sales, crowdfunding, and customer feedback, as well as the risks of securing patent claims before determining whether the claimed product can actually function or be manufactured competitively. The discussion also highlights the need for coordinated input from engineers, patent counsel, manufacturers, marketing professionals, and financial decision-makers. The episode offers a candid assessment of licensing, commercialization, and the low success rates associated with bringing new products to market. Greenberg explains why even a better, faster, or less expensive product may not make financial sense for an established company, while Quinn emphasizes disciplined market-size analysis and incremental investment. Their central takeaway is straightforward: inventors must validate the product, the market, and the business case at every stage—and continue investing only while the evidence supports moving forward. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Where Patent Disputes Are Won: Choosing the Right Battlefield to Achieve Victory

57 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Anthony Del Monaco, David Goose, Josh Hartman and John White about one of the most important strategic decisions in patent disputes: choosing the right battlefield. In today’s patent environment, outcomes are shaped not only by the strength of the patent, but by where the dispute is fought, how the forum operates, and what leverage each side can create. The conversation covers the shifting role of the PTAB, the rise of discretionary denials, the renewed interest in ex parte reexamination, and the continuing strategic importance of district court venue. The panel also explores when the International Trade Commission can provide patent owners with a powerful path to exclusionary relief, and why arbitration or mediation may sometimes offer a more practical route to resolution. The discussion then moves global, with particular attention to standard-essential patent disputes and the growing competition among China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Unified Patent Court to shape worldwide patent licensing outcomes. The result is a candid, practical conversation about forum selection, uncertainty, leverage, remedies, and how sophisticated patent owners and accused infringers should reverse-engineer strategy from the business outcome they need to achieve. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Patent Monetization Reality Check: Can Your Portfolio Survive Due Diligence?

46 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Dean Geibel and Karl Maersch. The conversation explores what patent owners must do before they can credibly monetize, license, sell, finance, or enforce a patent portfolio. Before any revenue strategy can succeed, companies first need to understand what they actually own, which assets are core, which are defensive, which may have value to others, and which patents may be consuming budget without advancing business objectives or portfolio value. Geibel and Maersch discuss the hard, often uncomfortable diligence required to separate valuable assets from deadwood. They examine how patent portfolios should be mapped against products, competitors, market direction, business units, revenue opportunities, and litigation risk. The discussion also addresses the importance of building portfolios with the end in mind, including claims that cover commercial products, claims that competitors will take seriously, and assets that can survive scrutiny from potential licensees, buyers, lenders, and litigation adversaries. The episode also highlights practical portfolio-building lessons, including the role of picture claims, design patents, prior art searching, patent landscapes, trade show intelligence, and ongoing communication with inventors, engineers, business leaders, and outside counsel. Ultimately, the conversation makes clear that patent monetization does not begin with litigation or licensing outreach. It begins much earlier, with disciplined prosecution strategy, market-informed portfolio management, and a clear-eyed assessment of whether the portfolio you have can survive due diligence when revenue opportunities emerge. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Built for Another Century: The Broken U.S. Patent System... And How to Fix It

46 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with former USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu. The conversation begins with Iancu’s path from engineering at Hughes Aircraft to intellectual property law, including his early years at the IP boutique Lyon & Lyon and his later experience as a leading patent litigator and law firm managing partner at Irell & Manella. From there, Quinn and Iancu examine the cyclical nature of IP practice, the migration of patent litigation into large general practice firms, and the growing commoditization of patent litigation work.  The discussion then turns to the structural imbalance facing patent owners in today’s enforcement environment. Quinn and Iancu address Section 101 motions to dismiss, PTAB challenges, routine litigation stays, Federal Circuit scrutiny, and the practical erosion of injunctive relief after a patent owner has already run the litigation gauntlet and proved infringement. Iancu explains that defendants now have many more pathways to victory than patent owners, who must prevail repeatedly across multiple forums and legal standards before securing meaningful relief. The result, they suggest, is a system that often no longer operates like a patent is an exclusive property right as was contemplated by the Constitution. The conversation ultimately broadens into a first-principles discussion about what the U.S. patent system should look like in the 21st century. Iancu argues that the current framework, rooted in 18th-century statutory realities, is struggling to accommodate software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other information-driven innovations. Quinn and Iancu explore whether a one-size-fits-all patent system still makes sense, whether sui generis rights may be necessary for emerging technologies, and how any future innovation framework must balance two core objectives: incentivizing investment in risky innovation while ensuring meaningful...

Fixing the Broken U.S. Patent System: A First-Principles Blueprint

1 hr 3 min

Send us Fan Mail This episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, features the closing panel conversation from IPWatchdog’s recent Patent Masters program.  Gene Quinn opens the conversation by arguing that the U.S. patent system is no longer functioning as a coherent innovation framework, but instead has become a fragmented mix of overlapping tribunals, inconsistent standards, procedural inefficiencies, and doctrinal barriers that make it harder to obtain, defend, and enforce meaningful patent rights. Rather than focusing on existing bills, USPTO rule packages, or incremental fixes, Gene explains that IPWatchdog will facilitate a year-long conversation in search of a first-principles blueprint for the U.S. patent system that restores predictability, protects investment, and reestablishes patents as critical to the innovation infrastructure.  To kick-off this project, our conversation this week brings together Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader, Scott McKeown, John White, and Colin Sandercock for a wide-ranging discussion of the structural failures now undermining patent reliability, investment, commercialization, and technological leadership. The participants identify patent eligibility, injunctions, post-grant review, Federal Circuit review, venue, judicial expertise, and the uncertain status of patents as property among the core issues requiring serious reconsideration. A recurring theme is the need for clarity, predictability, and institutional alignment so that innovators, investors, implementers, courts, and agencies can operate within a system that is fair, efficient, and commercially rational. The panel ultimately frames patent reform not as a narrow legislative exercise, but as a national innovation imperative. While the panelists acknowledge the practical difficulty of achieving Congressional action in today’s political environment, they also emphasize that meaningful change is feasible if stakeholders are wil...

Is America’s Patent System Ready for the AI Arms Race?

39 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Rama Elluru, who is Senior Advisor for the Special Competitive Studies Project, which is a bipartisan non-profit initiative, which makes recommendations to strengthen America's long-term competitiveness for a future where AI and other emerging technologies reshape our national security, economy, and society. Rama brings a rare cross-disciplinary perspective to the conversation, having worked as a computer scientist, patent attorney, Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO, and national security policy advisor. The discussion begins with her unconventional path into intellectual property, including her early work on embedded software tools for F-16 fighter jets, her clerkships at the ITC and Federal Circuit, her private practice experience, and her work at the USPTO as AI began to emerge as a strategic policy issue.  The conversation then turns to the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national competitiveness. Quinn and Elluru discuss whether the current U.S. patent system adequately incentivizes AI-related innovation, particularly as generative AI evolves toward more autonomous, agentic capabilities. They explore the hard questions policymakers will soon face around AI-assisted inventorship, patent eligibility, drug discovery, scientific research, and whether existing legal frameworks can keep pace with technologies that are advancing far faster than Congress, agencies, and courts typically move. Finally, Quinn and Elluru address the broader national security implications of intellectual property policy. They discuss AI-enabled fraud, workforce disruption, the need for guardrails and meaningful penalties for malicious uses of AI, and why IP must be understood as a core pillar of economic and national security strategy. Elluru explains why policymakers often fail to connect patent policy with strategic competition, despite the fact that...

When Antitrust Gets Patents Wrong: Weak Patent Rights Reward Copycats

47 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Alden Abbott, who is Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission. Abbott brings a rare combination of antitrust, intellectual property, administrative agency, and law-and-economics experience to a wide-ranging conversation about innovation policy, competition, and the practical consequences of government intervention in markets. The discussion traces Abbott’s career across government, academia, and public policy, including his work on issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Together Quinn and Abbott examine how patents, licensing, and competition law should work together to promote innovation rather than undermine it. They also discuss how policy frameworks such as Bayh-Dole and standard essential patent protections helped shape the modern innovation economy, and why the wrong economic assumptions can distort how policymakers view patents, licensing, and market power. The conversation then turns to today’s policy environment, including the risks created when antitrust rhetoric treats intellectual property rights as suspect rather than as pro-competitive assets. Quinn and Abbott also explain why weakening patent rights and pushing innovators out of business negotiations and into litigation can damage the innovation ecosystem. The conversation closes by focusing on the core issue for patent owners and policymakers alike, namely that a functioning innovation economy requires predictable property rights, disciplined antitrust enforcement, and a clear recognition that patents are not obstacles to competition—they are often the foundation that makes competition possible. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

AI and the Future of Patent Law Firms: Opportunity or Race to the Bottom?

59 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with a panel of experts. This conversation was a part of the recent IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters program, and featured Carlo Cotrone, founder and principal consultant of Quartal IP, Robert Plotkin, author, patent attorney and founding partner with Blueshift IP, and John Rogitz, managing attorney at Rogitz & Associates and a member of the IPWatchdog Advisory Committee. Together, the panel examined the future of patent law firms in an AI-driven marketplace, where in-house legal departments are internalizing more work, expecting greater efficiency, and increasingly questioning traditional outside counsel fee structures. The discussion focused on the operational realities behind the AI hype. While AI can improve research, drafting, analysis, and overall work product quality, the panel emphasized that it is not a magic button and cannot replace expert legal judgment. The most effective use of AI in patent practice is incremental, targeted, and lawyer-directed—more co-pilot than autopilot. Panelists explored the risks created when inventors, clients, or law firms over-rely on AI-generated disclosures, patent application critiques, or claim strategy recommendations, including the potential for increased attorney workload, inventorship complications, technical inaccuracies, and downstream litigation vulnerabilities. The conversation ultimately framed AI as both a market disruptor and a strategic opportunity for patent law firms. Firms that respond defensively or compete solely on price risk being pushed into an unsustainable race to the bottom. Firms that lean into client education, workflow redesign, transparent billing expectations, disciplined AI usage, and higher-value counseling will be better positioned to compete. The panel made clear that AI will not eliminate the need for sophisticated patent counsel; it will expose which firms are genuinely...

Patents, Property Rights, and What Patent Policy Keeps Getting Wrong

47 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Kristen Osenga, who is the Julie & John Nowak Faculty Research Scholar & Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Richmond School of Law. Osenga discusses her path from engineering to patent law, including her time at Finnegan and her clerkship with Judge Richard Linn of the Federal Circuit, and explains how those experiences shaped her strong appreciation for patent owners, innovators, and the real-world consequences of patent policy.  The conversation turns to Osenga’s scholarship, which she describes as focused on identifying what patent law commentators, policymakers, and courts are missing or getting wrong. She discusses her current research into who is actually suing whom in patent litigation, why the “patent troll” narrative has distorted enforcement policy, and how treating non-practicing patent owners as inherently suspect has harmed universities, startups, individual inventors, and small innovators. Quinn and Osenga also examine how large technology companies have successfully framed the patent debate around implementer concerns, often at the expense of innovators whose business model depends on licensing or enforcement rather than manufacturing. The episode also explores standard essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, eBay, competition policy, and the recurring misconception that patents are monopolies. Osenga explains why many anti-patent arguments gain traction because they sound intuitive to the public, even when they are economically or legally incomplete. Quinn and Osenga emphasize that companies are in business to make money, that “free” licensing is rarely actually free, and that strong patent rights remain essential to sustaining innovation. The broader takeaway is that patent policy improves only when judges, policymakers, staffers, commentators, and academics take the time to understan...

Patent Boutiques vs. Big Law: How In-House Teams Allocate Prosecution Work

51 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Fran Cruz, who is Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat, about how data, AI, and changing corporate economics are reshaping patent prosecution business development. The conversation frames a critical market reality: in-house IP teams are under sustained pressure to reduce spend, consolidate outside counsel rosters, and direct more work to firms that can demonstrate measurable value.  Cruz and Quinn examine recent prosecution-volume trends among the top 50 U.S. patent-filing assignees, with particular focus on whether IP boutiques are gaining ground against Am Law 200 firms. The data suggests the market is not simply shifting from large firms to boutiques, or vice versa. Instead, the dominant trend is client-specific consolidation: companies are moving more work to the best performers already on their existing rosters. The discussion highlights that efficiency metrics—especially average office actions, RCE rates, appeal strategy, 101 rejection outcomes, and cost per patent—are becoming increasingly important alongside allowance rates. Quinn emphasizes that law firms can no longer assume quality alone will carry the day; they need to understand what each client values, whether that is compact prosecution, strategic claim scope, portfolio value, or lower-cost patent-factory type execution. The episode closes with a practical business development playbook for patent firms operating in a cost-sensitive, data-driven market. Cruz urges firms to move beyond generic credentials pitches and instead teach prospective clients something specific about their own portfolios, prosecution patterns, competitors, or cost-saving opportunities. Quinn and Cruz also discuss how AI can sharpen messaging, compress bloated pitch language, improve decks and emails, and help firms articulate a differentiated value proposition in terms that in-house counsel actually c...

Why Drug Development Depends on Patent Protection

57 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Brent Bellows, a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS) in Atlanta, Georgia, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in human genetics. Brent traces his path from graduate research in medical genetics and tumor-associated antigens to patent law, including his time at King & Spalding, a clerkship in the Northern District of Georgia, and his work today at KIPS on patent prosecution, portfolio strategy, litigation support, licensing, and expert witness matters. The conversation highlights how Brent’s scientific training and litigation-facing experience inform the way he drafts and prosecutes life sciences patents, with a clear focus on how those assets may ultimately perform in district court, ANDA litigation, and biosimilar disputes.  Gene and Brent discuss what judges actually care about in patent cases, including why the story told in the patent application matters, why consistency from prosecution through litigation can be strategically important, and why some issues that loom large for prosecutors may carry less practical weight in court. Brent explains that district court judges often approach inequitable conduct allegations skeptically unless the conduct is truly egregious, and he offers insight into Markman practice, claim construction, and how life sciences disputes differ from many high-tech cases because the science often dictates the shape and value of the patent claims. The conversation then moves into the policy and business realities of pharmaceutical innovation, which dominate more than half of the conversation. Brent discusses a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore th...

Proactive IP Risk Management: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective

47 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice. Preston outlines her evolution from a general litigator into a leading IP strategist, highlighting how deep technical fluency—grounded in her physics background—became a competitive differentiator in high-stakes disputes. The discussion traces structural shifts in patent litigation over the past two decades, including venue realignment, the rise of specialized judicial expertise, Judge Alan Albright’s tenure in the Western District of Texas, and the likely impact Albright's resignation will have on patent litigation for years to come. The conversation then pivots to what Preston characterizes as “innovation governance”—a holistic operating model that integrates risk assessment, mitigation, licensing strategy, and, when necessary, litigation. Rather than positioning herself as a “sports” or “media” lawyer, Preston explains her practice as technology-centric problem solving across industries, which include the sports and entertainment industries. She details how legal teams must move upstream—anticipating IP risk in streaming platforms, content delivery architectures, and digital ecosystems—while maintaining alignment with core business objectives. Quinn and Preston converge on a critical insight: high-value counsel is defined less by discrete legal outputs and more by the ability to diagnose underlying business problems and deliver actionable, forward-looking solutions. Finally, the discussion addresses emerging pressure points shaping the next phase of IP and technology. Preston identifies artificial intelligence not just as a software issue, but as an infrastructure challenge—driving massive investment in data centers, energy systems, and associated IP frameworks. This shift is already catalyzing new ownership disputes and litigation...

SEPs, Patent Pools and the Case for Market-Based IP Solutions

49 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, our host and the founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, speaks with Matteo Sabattini about the structural forces shaping today’s global patent ecosystem. Sabattini discusses his return to Sisvel and his progression from engineering into intellectual property strategy, licensing, and policy advocacy. The conversation frames a core imbalance in the innovation economy: companies that invest in foundational technologies are consistently outnumbered—and often out-voiced—by implementers in policy debates, creating systemic pressure on the long-term sustainability of innovation incentives.  The discussion then drills into licensing dynamics and enforcement realities, with a focus on how delayed licensing and “holdout” behavior distort market outcomes. Sabattini quantifies the downstream effect—reduced effective royalty rates and uneven competitive conditions that penalize compliant licensees while advantaging non-paying market participants. Both speakers underscore a critical point: without credible enforcement mechanisms, particularly the availability of injunctions, the patent system loses negotiating leverage and invites strategic delay. The episode also reframes litigation funding and patent assertion as necessary tools that enable smaller innovators to compete in capital-intensive disputes, rather than as systemic inefficiencies.  The episode concludes with a forward-looking assessment of patent pools as a scalable, pro-competitive solution to licensing friction. Sabattini explains how aggregation models reduce transaction costs, enhance transparency, and streamline access to standard essential patents. He also highlights Sisvel’s collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization to expand SEP visibility through PatentScope integration, alongside targeted initiatives designed to lower barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. The bottom line: aligning policy, enforcement, and market-based solutions i...

High Performance, Hidden Struggles: The Human Side of IP Law

53 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed our host Gene Quinn has a candid conversation with Melissa Silverstein about both IP strategy and human side of IP, pivoting to discuss the struggles that some attorneys have with substance abuse. The first half of the conversation centers on a clear market correction in intellectual property strategy: portfolios are being forced to operate like business assets rather than legal inventory. Companies are increasingly questioning legacy filing habits, global coverage assumptions, and automatic maintenance practices. Budget pressure is driving more disciplined decision-making, including regular portfolio reviews, tighter alignment with product roadmaps, and a willingness to let non-performing assets lapse. The underlying shift is from accumulation to optimization—where every patent must tie directly to product protection, enforcement leverage, or forward-looking commercial value. The conversation then pivots sharply to the human dimension of the profession, where Melissa Silverstein’s current work is focused. Drawing on her own experience, she addresses the prevalence of substance abuse, burnout, and mental health challenges among high-performing attorneys. A central theme is that the legal profession has historically failed to create space for these issues, reinforcing a culture of perfectionism, silence, and alcohol-centric social norms. Silverstein’s work—through coaching individuals and advising organizations—aims to normalize these conversations, reduce stigma, and provide practical frameworks for both those struggling and those in long-term recovery who may feel excluded from traditional law firm culture. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Patent Monetization Problem: How Innovation Without Return Distorts the Market

46 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, the conversation between host Gene Quinn and patent broker Louis Carbonneau centers on a fundamental breakdown in the economic engine that has historically driven innovation. While innovation itself has not disappeared, the incentive structure that once enabled a repeatable cycle—innovate, patent, monetize, reinvest—has eroded. Large market participants increasingly operate under a “use now, pay later (if ever)” model, which disproportionately disadvantages individual inventors and smaller entities. As a result, many innovators are unable to sustain continued development beyond an initial breakthrough, leading to a systemic drag on long-term innovation output. This shift is reinforced by a broader cultural normalization of “free” access to intellectual property, which has migrated from the copyright into the patent and innovation industry. From a market standpoint, Carbonneau offers a cautiously optimistic outlook. The patent monetization environment is showing signs of recovery, driven primarily by changes in PTAB dynamics that have reduced the reliability of inter partes review as a low-cost, reliable invalidation tool. This has begun to rebalance negotiation leverage, making licensing discussions more viable. However, structural challenges remain—most notably the unresolved uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility under §101 and the absence of meaningful legislative reform. At the same time, large technology companies continue to benefit from a system that weakens enforceability for smaller players while preserving their own advantages through scale and cross-licensing, creating a persistent asymmetry in the market. Artificial intelligence emerges as the key disruptive force with the potential to reshape both patent quality and monetization strategy. AI is already enabling faster, more cost-effective analysis of large portfolios and improving drafting precision, which could elevate overall patent quality and s...

WIPO in Focus: Beyond Treaties, Toward a Market-Driven IP System

58 min

Send us Fan Mail The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been undergoing a quiet but meaningful transformation over the last 5-plus years. From a more traditional UN-style body into a service-driven, operationally focused global IP platform, WIPO is helping the entire global IP community. As Lisa Jorgenson, who is a Deputy Director of WIPO, explained in her recent conversation with Gene Quinn, the organization’s fee-based funding model fundamentally reshapes its priorities—forcing it to operate with a customer-centric mindset more akin to a business than a government agency. This shift is driving changes across the organization, including modernization of internal systems, a stronger emphasis on user engagement, and a move toward tailored, country-specific support rather than one-size-fits-all policy prescriptions.  At the core of this evolution is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which WIPO is repositioning not just as a filing mechanism, but as a strategic tool for managing uncertainty in a rapidly changing global economy. Both Quinn and Jorgenson emphasized that companies continue to underutilize the flexibility the PCT provides—particularly the 30-month window to evaluate markets, adjust supply chains, and make more informed investment decisions. In response, WIPO is investing in outreach, addressing user misconceptions about cost and complexity, and redesigning its service model to better support high-volume users through more direct and proactive engagement.  Looking forward, WIPO is aligning itself with the major forces reshaping the innovation ecosystem, including artificial intelligence, data governance, and the increasing complexity of global IP transactions. The organization is embedding AI into its own operations, expanding its role in areas such as standard essential patents (SEPs) and dispute resolution, and developing new infrastructure initiatives like a global patent assignment system. Taken together, these efforts reflect a broa...

AI, Budget Cuts, and the Future of In-House Patent Teams

1 hr 0 min

Send us Fan Mail Corporate IP departments are under growing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, leadership increasingly expects patents to deliver measurable business value, and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how patent work can be performed. What does this mean for the future of in-house patent teams—and for the law firms that support them? In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn is joined by Sivon Kalminov, Director of Intellectual Property for Canon USA, and Fran Cruz, Senior Vice President of IP Solutions at JuriStat, for a wide-ranging discussion on how modern corporate IP departments are adapting to a rapidly changing environment. The conversation explores several major trends shaping patent strategy today, including the shift toward quality over quantity in patent portfolios, the growing emphasis on maintenance fee pruning and portfolio discipline, and the evolving relationship between in-house counsel and outside patent law firms. The panel also examines how companies are using competitive intelligence, patent analytics, and emerging AI tools to guide filing strategy, manage costs, and identify licensing and enforcement opportunities. Finally, the discussion tackles one of the biggest questions facing the IP profession: What can AI realistically do for patent practitioners today—and what can’t it do yet? While AI is proving valuable for tasks like patent searching, competitive landscape analysis, and data-driven strategy, it is far from a “magic button” that replaces human expertise. For anyone working in patent law, intellectual property strategy, or corporate innovation management, this conversation offers an inside look at how leading companies are navigating the new economics of patent practice. Topics discussed include: How budget pressure is reshaping corporate patent strategyWhy companies are focusing on patent quality instead of quantityMaintenance fee pruning and portfolio management strategiesHow in-house...

Patents Don't Matter: The Real Story Shrinking Budgets Tell About the Patent System

15 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we focus on an issue that has been quietly reshaping the patent industry for years but has gained new momentum over the last year or two.  Patent budgets are shrinking, expectations are rising, and nobody seems willing to admit what that combination actually means.  Companies continue to say that patents remain essential to protecting innovation and supporting long-term business strategy. But if priorities are truly reflected in budgets, the message coming from corporate patent spending tells a different story.  Rather than confronting this tension directly, many organizations are trying to solve the problem by asking outside counsel to deliver more for less. They want stronger patents, deeper technical disclosures, broader claim support, and prosecution strategies designed to withstand litigation scrutiny—all while expecting preparation and prosecution costs to remain flat or even decline.  Layered on top of these pressures is a growing assumption that artificial intelligence should dramatically reduce the cost of patent work. And while AI can significantly enhance quality the productivity gains many expected from AI have not yet materialized. So, this week we discuss whether client actions suggest patents still matter. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Inventing with Intent: Where Engineering Rigor Meets Business Reality

49 min

Send us Fan Mail What does it mean to be a prolific inventor in an era of corporate retrenchment, weakened patent rights, and risk-averse innovation culture? This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, host Gene Quinn explores that question with Fred Shelton—an engineer who has accumulated more than 3,000 patents over roughly two decades, primarily during his career at Johnson & Johnson. Shelton describes himself not as an IP professional, but as an engineer who “documents engineering through patents.” That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual. Fred Shelton’s career illustrates that prolific invention is not the product of luck or raw creativity. It is the result of disciplined problem identification, constraint-driven ideation, market realities, and intentional IP architecture. Innovation does not happen in a vacuum. It happens where engineering rigor meets business reality and where invention is documented not as an afterthought, but as a strategic foundation.  Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Rainmaking for Lawyers: Going Beyond Random Acts of Marketing to Win Clients

52 min

Send us Fan Mail In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn speaks with Deborah Farone, founder of Farone Advisors and former Chief Marketing Officer of Cravath, Swain & Moore, about how lawyers—particularly in highly technical fields like intellectual property—can build thriving practices through disciplined, strategic business development. Farone emphasizes that effective marketing for lawyers begins with strategy, should not be transactional and is something that should not be outsourced. Lawyers must define their niche, understand their market positioning, and align business development efforts with their personal strengths, interests, and economically viable opportunities.  The discussion underscores that business development is a skill, not an innate personality trait. Even introverted attorneys can succeed by taking incremental steps, practicing authentic communication, and focusing on listening rather than selling. Relationship-building—before, during, and after conferences or meetings—is central. Preparation demonstrates empathy and builds trust; follow-up sustains momentum. The most effective rainmakers operate with a “soft sell” mindset, positioning themselves as problem-solvers and trusted advisors rather than transactional vendors. Consistent habits—scheduled follow-ups, thoughtful notes, leveraging speaking engagements into written content, and strategic use of LinkedIn—create compounding long-term value. Finally, Farone and Quinn highlight the importance of early-career development. Associates should begin cultivating networks from day one, maintaining law school and professional relationships that may later become client pipelines. Firms that invest in marketing training and provide even modest development budgets for associates strengthen long-term institutional resilience. Those that fail to train lawyers in business development risk producing technically excellent but commercially underdeveloped partners.  The central takeaway: Sustainabl...

Reexamination vs. IPR: Which is Better for Patent Owners?

49 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the  Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf join host Gene Quinn for an examination of how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. The conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities.  While IPR proceedings offer structured timelines, litigation-style advocacy, and strict scrutiny of petitions as drafted, reexamination provides prosecution-style flexibility, examiner interviews, and opportunities to refine claims through amendment. The trio emphasized that the low threshold for ordering reexamination makes institution statistics less meaningful than what happens in the first Office action. At the same time, PTAB proceedings can end quickly if institution is denied, offering efficiency advantages that reexamination cannot always match. These tradeoffs mean that neither forum is universally superior; each presents strategic advantages depending on the strength of the prior art, litigation posture, and business objectives.  Ultimately, the discussion underscored that administrative patent review remains in a period of policy uncertainty. Changes in PTAB discretionary-denial practice, operational shifts within the CRU, and the absence of stable rulemaking create ongoing unpredictability for both patent owners and challengers. As post-grant challenges increasingly shift between forums, practitioners must focus on rigorous diligence, careful drafting, and adaptable strategy. The...

PTAB Whiplash and Uncertainty: Director Discretion and Policy Swings at the PTO

52 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed Gene Quinn speaks with Todd Walters and the two explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. Both emphasized that the most striking development in recent PTAB discussions is the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners alike, reflecting the high financial stakes and strategic importance of AIA proceedings.  A central theme of the discussion was the lack of predictability in PTAB practice, driven largely by shifts in USPTO leadership and the exercise of Director discretion in administering AIA trials. Walters noted that changes in policies governing discretionary denials, real-party-in-interest rules, and parallel litigation considerations have made it difficult for practitioners to provide durable strategic guidance. Quinn and Walters agreed that without greater stability, the system will continue to experience “pendulum swings,” with each administrative transition reshaping PTAB access and outcomes in ways that undermine confidence in the patent system.  The discussion also addressed broader structural issues in patent dispute resolution, including serial challenges to patents, the emerging concept of “settled expectations,” and the complexity created by parallel proceedings across the PTAB, district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. Both participants suggested that meaningful reform will require patent owners and petitioners to work together to develop a more predictable and balanced framework for post-grant review. While consensus may not satisfy stakeholders at the extremes, establishing clear and stable rules would strengthen confidence in the patent system and reduce the cycle of policy reversals that has defined PTAB practice in recent years. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Faceb...

Inside the PTAB Reset: Reengineering the PTAB with Practical Fixes

54 min

Send us Fan Mail In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn and Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Quinn and Johnson explain the viewpoint that the PTAB drifted from what many had initially expected, pointing to among other things the lengthy, merits focused institution decisions and serial challenges that eroded confidence among patent owners and raised serious questions about whether the PTAB functioned as a balanced error-correction mechanism.  The conversation zeroes in on structural flaws that distort outcomes rather than improve patent quality. Quinn and Johnson discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. They also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance “ankle-biter” assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process, leaving operating companies to absorb the cost as a tax on doing business and legitimate patent owners to be vilified as if they are the problem. Johnson offers concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, he proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.  The takeaway is clear: the PTAB does not need to be dismantled—but it does need disciplined recalibration if it is to de...

IP, Ingenuity and Entrepreneurship: Enabling Human Creativity, Innovation and Economic Mobility

1 hr 1 min

Send us Fan Mail In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn speaks with Megan Carpenter following her decision to step down as Dean of UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law after more than eight years. Carpenter reflects on rebuilding the institution’s IP-focused identity, restoring alumni trust, increasing enrollment and driving engagement growth, while explaining why builders—such as herself—eventually need new challenges. The conversation quickly broadens into a candid assessment of the IP ecosystem. Quinn and Carpenter discuss intellectual property as the legal infrastructure that enables and supports human creativity, innovation, and economic mobility—but acknowledge that intellectual property suffers from a serious messaging and credibility gap largely because the compelling argument for strong IP requires a story and explanation, while the misguided “weak IP is best” movement can fit its narrative onto a bumper sticker. Both Quinn and Carpenter also agree that weak enforcement, efficient infringement, and diminished remedies have distorted incentives, pushing innovators toward litigation instead of productive licensing and collaboration. They also tackle emerging issues, including AI’s impact on legal practice and education. Both emphasize that AI is a powerful tool, not a replacement for human judgment, and warn that law schools and firms that fail to train lawyers in AI literacy and prompting skills are already falling behind. The discussion concludes with a clear takeaway: IP professionals occupy a privileged and strategic position. Strengthening IP systems, rebuilding public trust, and expanding opportunity—especially for smaller innovators and underrepresented communities—are not optional. They are essential to sustaining innovation in a rapidly evolving global economy. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

PTAB Reckoning: Power, Policy, and the Future of Patent Enforcement

49 min

Send us Fan Mail In this edition of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn hosts a comprehensive discussion with Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and Brad Close, Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP. The trio explores the current state of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), examining recent changes, the impact on patent owners and litigation, and the historical context of patent law and why the PTAB was created. They delve into the roles of non-practicing entities (NPEs), the integrity of the re-examination process, and the inefficiency of the patent litigation system. This detailed conversation sheds light on the complexities of patent enforcement, the economics of defending patents, and the broader legal landscape affecting innovators and patent practitioners. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Pioneering Innovations and Legacy: A Conversation with Inventor Gil Hyatt

43 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn sits down with prolific inventor Gil Hyatt, exploring his innovative journey and aspirations to leave a lasting legacy. Gil, known for his significant contributions to the field of electrical engineering and microcomputers, shared insightful anecdotes about his early days, his pioneering work in artificial intelligence, and his ambitions to benefit future generations. Throughout the discussion, Gene and Gil tackled the controversies surrounding the perception of inventors like Hyatt as "patent trolls." Clarifying this mischaracterization, Hyatt explained that while his patents were widely licensed, he never instigated lawsuits for patent infringement—rather the lawsuits he was involved in often came from companies seeking invalidation for strategic advantage.  One of the key highlights of the conversation was Gil's creation of a non-profit AI Foundation, which is aimed at advancing AI technology and bolstering U.S. economic interests. This non-profit organization is set to hold Gil's substantial portfolio of AI patent applications, which cover his pioneering work dating back to the 1980s, and includes groundbreaking claims in artificial intelligence that could revolutionize sectors like education, manufacturing, and trade. Throughout the conversation Gil discusses the spirit of the American dream, and how the Foundation, operating in consultation with the Trump Administration, intends to leverage AI in support of trade negotiations, offering favorable licensing to U.S. companies while using patent rights to block foreign imports that violate the AI manufacturing process patents at the International Trade Commission. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Behind the Scenes with Renee Quinn: From Humble Beginnings to Industry Leadership

44 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed our host Gene Quinn, the founder of IPWatchdog is joined by the beautiful and talented Renee C. Quinn, his wife and business partner. Renee, a marketing and e-commerce expert, shares her journey into the world of intellectual property, her insights on doing business as a serial entrepreneur, and her stories from the past two decades as she and Gene built IPWatchdog into the media company it is today. We explore Renee's entry introduction to  intellectual property, personal stories and business lessons. We discuss how like many innovators, she did not initially recognize her own creativity as “IP.” That realization came only after exposure—after seeing how problem-solving, tinkering, and practical ingenuity translate into protectable assets. And, yes, she is a patented inventor, she runs and monetizes IPWatchdog, and she is increasingly working in front of the curtain moderating panels and webinars. So, please join us for this special edition of IPWatchdog Unleashed.  Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

2025 in Focus: Voices, Ideas, and the Road Ahead

55 min

Send us Fan Mail In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed we take a stroll down memory lane to look back on some of the conversations we had with guests during 2025 that were for one reason or another moments that stood out. This is not a "best o 2025" per se, and the pieces of conversations we pull together were not always chosen because they dealt with hard hitting substantive IP issues, although some do.  We begin our journey through 2025 with our conversation with Judge John Holcomb, who is a federal district court judge for the Central District of California. Judge Holcomb was one of our keynote speakers at IPWatchdog LIVE 2025, where he and Gene had a fireside chat style conversation, which was our podcast episode for March 10, 2025. In the piece of our conversation selected Gene asked him about how he became a judge and specifically about how he got onto the radar of those advising the President who to nominate. Judge Holcomb also discusses his judicial philosophy, retelling the tale of three umpires chatting after a game. We also remember an emotional conversation with Sherry Knowles, a breast cancer survivor who talked with us about the journey of life saving drugs from lab to market. We talk with Henry Hadad about music, creativity and who is the greatest guitarist of all time. We cover what it means to be innovative with Patrick Kilbride, how intellectual property empowers with WIPO Director General Daren Tang, the shocking reasons why Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals with Corey Salsberg, the petitioner's perspective about what changes are being made to the PTAB with Scott McKeown, and the never ending fight against fakes, dupes and counterfeits with Gina Johnson.  Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Patent Reset: 2025’s Pivotal Moments and What Comes Next

1 hr 21 min

Send us Fan Mail 2025 was punctuated by a structural reset for the U.S. patent system. What unfolded was not incremental reform, but a coordinated shift driven by leadership change, policy realignment, economic pressure, and accelerating adoption of AI—all converging to reshape how patents are examined, challenged, monetized, and managed. This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we explore the biggest changes and trends that impacted the patent and innovation industry during 2025, with host Gene Quinn (IPWatchdog) and guest  Fran Cruz (Juristat). At the center of this reset was new leadership at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which acted as the catalyst for most of the downstream change. With a renewed mandate to reduce backlog, improve patent quality, and modernize operations, the agency moved decisively—putting speed, accountability, and strategic coherence front and center.  One of the most consequential outcomes was the aggressive recalibration of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The result has been a measurable shift away from IPRs. Patent owners gained leverage as challengers faced friction for the first time in years. At the same time, 2025 delivered the strongest pro-eligibility signals in over a decade. Through guidance updates, precedential decisions, examiner reminders, and MPEP revisions, the USPTO laid the groundwork for a more predictable and innovation-aligned approach to §101—particularly for software and AI-enabled inventions. While courts ultimately control the doctrine, the agency made clear it intends to examine inventions with an eye toward real-world utility. Economic realities also forced behavioral change. Significant USPTO fee increases—combined with corporate cost-cutting—pushed in-house teams to rethink portfolio strategy. The year saw sharper filing discipline, aggressive maintenance-fee pruning, fewer RCEs, and closer scrutiny of outside counsel spend. In-house teams became more data-driven, more pres...

101 Crossroads: Can the USPTO Fix What the Courts and Congress Won’t?

57 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we present a three-way conversation about patent eligibility between Gene Quinn, the founder of IPWatchdog.com, and patent attorneys and IPWatchdog Advisory Committee members John Rogitz and Clint Mehall.  Under Director John Squires, the Patent Office is attempting to restore discipline and structure to the Section 101 inquiry, with the office earlier this month having updated the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) in light of a recent decision by Squires in Ex parte Desjardins, where it was decided that improvements to the training of a machine learning technology were patent eligible. Thus, the Patent Office is emphasizing real-world technological improvements, requiring examiners to engage with the specification, and rejecting overbroad “abstract idea” characterizations—particularly for AI and machine-learning inventions.  At the same time the Patent Office is taking action, the Federal Circuit continues to inject uncertainty into the system. The CAFC refuses to define the term “abstract idea,” they continue to decide patent eligibility matters without claim construction, and panel-dependent outcomes are the norm. This is not doctrinal confusion—it is a judicial choice that enables early case dismissal while undermining the patent statute and harming innovators. Bottom line that comes from this conversation is that the USPTO is moving in the right direction, but without meaningful judicial or legislative correction of Section 101, these reforms can only go so far. A patent system that cannot protect modern technology cannot sustain long-term innovation. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

The Slow Death of AIA Trials: A Look at the PTO’s ‘One-and-Done’ Rule Package

1 hr 1 min

Send us Fan Mail On this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, Gene Quinn sits down with one of the leading PTAB practitioners and strategist Scott McKeown to unpack the USPTO’s controversial “one-and-done” PTAB rule package. With more than 10,000 comments filed and over 700 individual commenters weighing in, the proposal has become a flashpoint for questions that go way beyond discretionary denial and AIA trials. Gene and Scott drill down on what USPTO Director John Squires is actually trying to accomplish, why the Office is now wrapping aggressive policy changes in “fairness” rhetoric, why some view this proposed rules package to be an effort at de facto legislation, and why former Members of Congress who wrote the AIA are now publicly objecting to the rules package. They also flag the real-world impact on small and mid-size companies, the growing risk that the PREVAIL Act and PERA will now be dead on arrival, and what this latest PTAB fight tells us about a broken Congress, an overactive administrative state, and a patent system that simply can’t deliver quiet title. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

Real Talk About Patent Practice, Passing the Patent Bar, AI and More

53 min

Send us Fan Mail Join Gene Quinn and John White in this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed as they delve into the intricacies of passing the Patent Bar and its latest updates. With over two decades of friendship and collaboration in the patent industry, Gene and John share personal anecdotes, discuss the shifting phases of the patent exam, and scrutinize the impact of artificial intelligence on the exam and exam preparation. They then pivot for the second half of the conversation to more broadly discuss AI and how it is being used, and perhaps how it should be used, in patent practice. They also explore the importance of staying current with legal changes, the shortcomings of relying on AI for legal accuracy, and provide valuable insights for both veteran practitioners and newcomers to the field. Tune in for an enriching conversation that combines professional expertise, personal experiences and that singular brand of humor Gene and John bring to the topic.  Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

AI, IP & Data Risk: Responsibly Adopting AI While Safeguarding IP

55 min

Send us Fan Mail This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we panel discussion that took place on October 27 as a part of our annual life sciences program. Initially styled as a conversation about how artificial intelligence is transforming life sciences, it becomes quickly apparent that the conversation was not going to be limited to the life sciences sector but instead was a robust discussion about what any innovative company should consider when considering the adoption of AI tools. Indeed, the discuss was really about what all companies must do to allow or even encourage the use of AI by researchers and scientists without opening catastrophic IP and data-security failures, risk and liability. We address data protection, trade secret risks, employee monitoring, AI governance, the importance of using AI responsibly, and much more. Moderated by Gene Quinn, founder of IPWatchdog, the conversation brought together Brian Cocca, Executive Director & Assistant General Counsel for IP at Regeneron; Gary Lobel, Chief IP Counsel; Drhuv Sud, Senior Director & Assistant General Counsel at Regeneron; and Giulia Toti, co-founder of Anchor AI. Collectively, the panel unpacked the real-world collision between AI adoption, IP protection, data governance, competitive strategy and risk. Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com. You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook. 

See all 126 episodes

–

0 ratings from members

5
4
3
2
1

Rate this podcast

Log in to rate and review the shows you listen to.

No reviews yet — be the first member to rate "IPWatchdog Unleashed".

This podcast, its content and its artwork are not owned by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Castquire.

Keep listening

Discover more podcasts like this.

Browse podcasts See the charts

Up next

  1. Nothing queued. Use + Queue on any episode to line it up.

0:00 0:00

Cookies

We set only what the site needs to sign you in and remember your theme. No advertising, no analytics. Read more.