This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed my conversation is with Kevin McNish, who is a registered patent attorney who represents clients in inter partes reviews (IPR), post-grant reviews (PGR), ex parte reexaminations, and other proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

I invited McNish to join us for a conversation about PTAB practice and how it has evolved over the last several months, and to specifically discuss one of the more intriguing criteria being used by the USPTO to discretionarily deny institution of IPR challenges—the settled expectations of the patent owner. This factor takes into account the length of time a patent has been in force and not challenged. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we have a conversation about one of the hottest topics not just in the intellectual property world, but one of the topics that everyone both inside and outside of government is discussing. The cost of prescription pharmaceuticals is higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world, and many in the United States—including President Trump—are fed up with this imbalance. 

So, we will set the record straight and explain what is really causing Americans to pay high drug prices. To accomplish this my conversation is with Corey Salsberg, who is Vice President and Global Head of IP Affairs for Novartis, which is one of the leading and most innovative biopharmaceutical companies in the world. We discuss the issues that matter for the pharmaceutical industry, including what and who is really responsible for higher drug prices in America. We discuss President Trump’s attempts to force most favored nation (MFN) pricing that would demand the U.S. pay no more than what other countries pay for drugs. And we also take a moment to discuss the recent tragic deaths of Malcolm Jamal Warner, Ozzy Osbourne, and Hulk Hogan, and the future of artificial intelligence (AI).

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we explore the age-old question about whether it is best to keep an innovation as a trade secret or whether it makes sense to seek patent protection. And while this question is not one that is new, it is a question that has been getting more attention in recent years. And what I mean by that is this—it is hard not to notice that U.S. patents have been under siege for some time now. This has driven innovators into trade secret protection and away from patent protection in at least some technology fields. So, it is against this backdrop of increasing interest in trade secrets instead of patents that we had a conversation about how to determine whether to keep an innovation as a trade secret or to plow forward to seek patent protection.

Joining moderator Gene Quinn for this conversation are Carlo Cotrone, who is the former Chief IP Officer for Techtronic Industries who also spent time in the oil and gas industry as lead IP counsel for Baker Hughes. Today, Carlo is the founder and principal consultant for Quartal IP. Also joining the conversation is a former law school mate of mine, Arash Behravesh, who is Enterprise Counsel for the Chemistry & Supplies Division at Agilent Technologies, and Bryan Walker, who is Senior IP Counsel at 3M, where he has responsibility for developing and managing international patent portfolios, trade secrets, generative AI and more.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed my conversation is with my friend Wen Xie. Many of you probably already know Wen. If you've been to IPWatchdog events, you've undoubtedly met her already, and you've heard her speak on our stage and in our webinars about various topics related to patent practice and procedure. 

Wen has more than a decade of experience as a U.S. patent attorney, and her specialty is with software and artificial intelligence (AI). She recently founded Lex Lumen Intellectual Property law firm, where she engages in representation with a client-centered focus that fuses digital modernity with a traditional patent practice. 

We begin our conversation by giving Wen an open mic opportunity to share her thoughts on the state of the industry, with me specifically asking:  What was on your mind as you drove to the studio today?

“You just asked me just now before we started filming, should we be afraid of AI,” Wen begins. “And my answer is there's no point in being afraid because it's coming… AI is coming in every profession, every technology."

After discussing Issac Asimov's three rules for robots, our conversation takes a turn toward innovation and patents. Can AI contribute originality at this point in its development that would be properly considered conception within the legal definition of inventing. We also discuss the importance of prompting, and how it can and should be used to streamline patent practice and drafting. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we dive into patent eligibility waters, with a discussion on how patent attorneys and litigators alike can cope with Alice. Our conversation will triangulate the issue from the political perspective, from the perspective of a patent litigator who represents patent owners in federal court, and from the perspective of a patent attorney who represents clients as they attempt to obtain software patents.

Joining us this week is the Honorable Andrei Iancu, former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. And as many of you no doubt know, Andrei was responsible for the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO, which has made it easier to obtain software patents from the Office, but which the Federal Circuit continues to ignore in favor of their own disjointed, unpredictable, non-repeatable test.  From the patent litigator perspective we have Vince Rubino, who is a partner with Fabricant in the firm’s NY City office, and from the patent prosecution perspective we have John Rogitz, who is Managing Attorney at Rogitz & Associates. 

I started our conversation giving an open mic opportunity for Andrei, Vince and John to jumpstart our conversation by giving me their big picture thoughts on 101. Andrei, who was unfortunately suffering from a bit of laryngitis, leads off.  

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

To successfully monetize a patent portfolio, it is necessary to identify the value within the portfolio and to put in the work to prove to third parties and potential partners that that value exists. But even then, even when all the hard work has been done, after quality assets have been obtained, after evidence of use has been gathered and negotiations have begun, there are no guarantees.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we enter the world of patent monetization, with a conversation about patent licensing and dealmaking—and of course the enforcement landscape. We also discuss the impact the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to have over the industry, and particularly the influence the PTAB exerts over patent monetization and dealmaking. 

Joining me this week are Russell Binns, the CEO at Allied Security Trust, Bill Geary, the Chief Strategy Officer at IDEAHUB, and Jonathan Rogers, who is Chief Operating Officer for cybersecurity leader Centripetal. 

As you hear the conversation unfold we discuss that deals are still getting done and although the value of the deals currently being consummated has not increased in 2025 compared with the last several years, the number of deals being done has dramatically increased, which could very well be the first sign of a bounce in the patent marketplace on the horizon. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we enter the patent litigation world for a conversation about gaming the system. For too long popular sentiment has been that patent owners are bad actors simply because they are patent owners. 

Obviously, just being a patent owner does not make one a bad actor, and neither does enforcing a patent against an alleged infringer. But this patent troll narrative has been quite successful and has turned everyone who owns and enforces patents into an evil archvillain. 

Meanwhile, alleged infringers love to portray themselves as victims of unscrupulous patent trolls. So ineffectual is patent protection in the United States that the largest implementers who take products and services to market do not license patents, they simply engage in efficient infringement. 

To break through the generalities and get to the heart of the matter we hosted a discussion on June 3 between Katie O’Sullivan, who is Senior Corporate Counsel for U.S. Litigation at Renesas Electronics, Ben Herbert, who is a partner and co-lead of the Intellectual Property Practice at Miller Barondess, and Ben Weed, who is General Counsel for Ridge, the wallet company that sells primarily on Amazon and through other online platforms. 

We begin our conversation with my asking each for their initial, big picture, preliminary views on gaming patent litigation.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we speak with F. Scott Kieff, who is a former Commissioner on the International Trade Commission, and Joshua Hartman, head of Merchant & Gould’s ITC practice group. Our conversation, which took place on June 4, focused on the landmark ruling by the Federal Circuit in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission. Our conversation is wide ranging and touches on the politics and history of the ITC, which Kieff explains is quite important to keep in mind as we try and decipher this decision that was 40 years in the making really. We also discuss whether the decision fits within an America First philosophy, and whether the ITC is likely to become a more accessible forum for other small business patent owners. We begin with Kieff giving us his preliminary thoughts. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

Ways to make a better patent system is a common theme at IPWatchdog, and we are going to get more seriously involved in that discussion over the next year as we try to bring thought leaders together for high-level, substantive conversations. And this conversation is the opening salvo in that effort. 

 Our panel really needs no introduction. All the members joining us this week are members of the IPWatchdog Hall of Fame. We start with Bob Stoll, is a former Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and among other things he is an expert witness. We are also joined by retired Chief Judge Paul Michel Hall of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The final member of the panel is Judge Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

 The premise of the conversation is to identify solutions for a better patent system that would improve the current state of the system without empowering bad actors, such as patent trolls. I begin the conversation offering each of the panelists an open mic to start so they can set forth their preliminary thoughts. The conversation then evolves from there. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we have a conversation that I've wanted to have for some time. The topic this week is quantum computers. It is quite a niche topic and finding people who actually know what they're talking about is not particularly easy, but this is an enormously important topic that we should all know something about because for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to achieve all its full potential we are going to need much better and much faster computers. And whether it is ultimately quantum computing or whatever comes next, quantum computers are going to be at minimum a bridge to go from where we are right now to where most in the public already think we are in terms of AI sophistication.

This conversation was recorded as part of our annual Artificial Intelligence program, which was held April 21-23 at IPWatchdog Studios. I was joined on stage in front of a studio audience by Robert Plotkin, and Robert is the founder of BlueShift IP. He's also written for us at IPWatchdog.com, and he is also an author. His first book was Genie in the Machine was published in 2009, and dealt with computer automated innovation. Most recently his new book AI Armorwhich deals with securing intellectual property protection for AI innovations, was published in 2024. Also joining the conversation was Sarah Schlotter, who is an attorney with Wolf Greenfield in Boston. Sarah is a member of the firm’s Electrical & Computer Technologies practice group, and she holds a PhD in applied physics from Harvard University.  Both Robert and Sarah regularly represent clients with respect to AI innovations, and particularly with respect to quantum hardware and quantum software inventions. 

We discuss one of the core mysteries of quantum mechanics, which says that a particle can exist in multiple states simultaneously and also be in multiple locations at once. This concept explains how two or more particles can be linked in such a way that they share the same condition or state regardless of distance, a phenomenon known as quantum entanglement, which Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance”.

Our conversation also covers specific use cases for quantum computers, and as we talk about specific use cases we pivot into obtaining patent protection for those use cases, how the United States Patent and Trademark Office is handling quantum computing related innovations, and whether patent examiners are issuing patent eligibility rejections for quantum software the same way that we have come to expect with classical software—spoiler alert, patent examiners are treating quantum software the same as classical software for eligibility purposes. 

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.